
urauiim i riuit- ' nuana tra 

































( 


Class B L ZG 5 

Book_ 'lA _ 

CopyiiglrtN 0 _ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSITS 













































































Atheism 

In Our Universities 


BY 

ALFRED FAIRHURST, A.M., D.Sd. 

Author of 

“Organic Evolution Considered,” 
“Theistic Evolution,” Etc. 



CINCINNATI, OHIO 

THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY 




Copyright, 1923, 

The Standard Publishing Company 


r 3 



NOV 1 9 1923 


CONTENTS 


Introduction 
Preface . 


IjAW 

.M I T »••••••••••••••••••••■ 



Evolution a Fashion. 


III. 


Design in Nature 


Page 

7 

9 

15 

23 

35 


IV. 

Spontaneous Generation .. 42 

V. 

Failures of Evolution ....... 51 


VI. 

Answers to Questionnaire 

By Chancellor David Starr Jordan and Dr. 

Ray Leman Wilbur, of Leland Stan¬ 
ford University__ 72 


3 






Contents 


VII. 

Answers to Questionnaire 

By Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus 
of Harvard University, and by Arthur 
T. Hadley, Ex-President of Yale . 104 

VIII. 

Answers to Questionnaire 

By Dr. John J. Coss, for President Butler, 
of Columbia University; Prof. R. M. 
Wenley, for President Hutchins, of 
Michigan University; Professor Nach- 
tricht, for Pres. Marion L. Burton, of 
University of Minnesota; Pres. Frank 
J. Goodnow, of Johns Hopkins Uni¬ 
versity; Pres. William S. Currell, by 
Prof. A. C. Moore, University of South 
Carolina .. 129 


IX. 

Answers to Questionnaire 

By President Campbell by Prof. John F. 
Bovard, of University of Oregon; Pres. 
Robert F. Vinson by Prof. D. B. Cas¬ 
teel, University of Texas; Pres. J. Ross 
Stevenson by W. Brent Greene, Jr., 
Princeton Theological Seminary; Pres. 

4 





Contents 


John Grier Hibben by Prof. E. G. 
Conklin, Princeton University; Pres. 
Lemuel II. Murlin, of Boston Univer¬ 
sity . 146 


X. 

Letters and Answers to Questions 

Dean Franklin N. Parker, Candler School 
of Theology, Emory University; Pres. 

C. A. Barbour, Rochester Theological 
Seminary; Pres. Henry C. King, 
Oberlin College; Pres. W. 0. Thompson, 

Ohio State University . 175 

XI. 

Other Letters and Answers 

From State Superintendents of Public 
Instruction and Others. 

Albert Olney, Commissioner of Secondary 
Schools, California; Thomas Johnson, 
Superintendent of Schools, Michigan; 

F. G. Blair, Superintendent of Public 
Instruction, Illinois; L. N. Hines, State 
Superintendent of Indiana; Charles 
F. Wheelock, Assistant Commissioner 
Secondary Education, New York; 
Robert I. Bramball, Division of Ele- 

5 





Contents 


mentary Education, Massachusetts; 
Pres. Walter P. Morgan, Western 
Illinois State Normal School; Pres. J. 

H. Coates, Eastern Kentucky Normal 

oil O 01 •HIM»l**«a»***l<»MH»(>*»>«******i******M**t>***ll*iaH*att»*t>IM<»««»l*** ^1 ^ ^ 


XII. 


Some Conclusions 


.. 196 


6 





INTRODUCTION 


M Y object in writing this volume is to 
counteract, to some extent, the influence 
of the agnostic and atheistic philosophy of evo¬ 
lution, and that view of theistic evolution which 
holds that this is God’s only method of work¬ 
ing. To this end I ask that this volume be 
given a place in the libraries of our universi¬ 
ties, colleges, normal schools and high schools, 
and, whenever the subject of evolution is taught, 
in as prominent a place as is given to the 
leading authors who favor this theory. 

In most cases the books selected on this 
subject have been in favor of the theory of 
evolution, and chosen with the view of propa¬ 
gating this theory, while the books opposed to 
it have been largely ignored. This method 
shows a lack of intellectual fairness. The 
mechanical display made by a library on evolu¬ 
tion is intended to impress the beholder with 
a sense of the futility of offering any opposi¬ 
tion. The average mind casts its vote with the 
majority. 

This philosophy of creation is now posing 
before the public under the name of the “scien¬ 
tific method,” and it is commonly classed as 
a branch of “science.” Alfred Fairhurst. 

Lexington, Ky., May 6, 1921. 

7 






PREFACE 

I T has been a great happiness to me to have 
had even a small part in the great work 
to which my beloved father, Alfred Fairhurst, 
devoted so many years of his life. I wish that 
I were able to adequately portray the strength 
and beauty of my father’s character, which 
seemed to me like a calm, broad stream, flow¬ 
ing through a turbulent world, sure in its 
power and majesty, and enriching the lives 
of all it touched. 

Almost as early as I can remember, my 
father studied and wrote upon the subject 
of ‘‘evolution.” His last years were con¬ 
centrated upon an effort to combat the per¬ 
nicious effect of the popular construction 
put upon the so-called Darwinian theory of 
evolution. I use the word “so-called” ad¬ 
visedly, for Charles Darwin never dreamed 
to what limits future generations would carry 
his entertaining hypothesis. 

There are a number of good people in the 
world who sincerely think they believe in the 
Darwinian theory of evolution. In their 

human desire to follow the “lead of fashion,” 

9 


Preface 


they do not realize that they are following a 
cult founded upon matter and force only, the 
foundation stone of which is an impossibility, 
for scientists agree upon the one fact that 
“life comes only from life,” and, to follow 
evolution to its logical beginning, it is neces¬ 
sary to cast aside this axiom. It is to these 
good, but misinformed, people that my father 
addressed his efforts. 

There is no conflict between geology and 
Genesis. They are only written from different 
viewpoints; the one with the idea of teaching 
the process of the physical formation of the 
world, the other with the object to show that 
the earth and all that dwell therein are the 
handiwork of God. The word “day” is used 
to express a period of time, as when we say 
“in that day,” meaning “in that period of 
the world’s history.” 

Although in many States of the Union the 
Bible is not permitted to be read in the pub¬ 
lic schools, in these same schools and in our 
universities the people’s money is being spent 
in employing teachers who, knowing really 
but very little about the subject of evo¬ 
lution, dogmatically teach it as a “science” 
instead of as a “theory,” and thus, little 
by little, slowly but surely, are sowing 
the seed of destructive criticism of the 
Bible. 


10 



Preface 


It is my belief that the tide is now begin¬ 
ning to turn, and that a small army of lead¬ 
ers is forming who will carry on the good 
work in which Alfred Fairhurst was the 
pioneer who blazed the way. 

It seems appropriate to give here a brief 
sketch of my father’s life. He was born in 
Bruceville, Ind., on April 28, 1843, the son of 
Dr. William Fairhurst. His mother, before 
her marriage, was Margaret Bartley. He was 
one of a large family of brothers. He received 
his education at Butler College and at Har¬ 
vard University. He taught for several years 
at Butler and at Akron, 0. Later he entered 
the practice of law, and went into partner¬ 
ship with my mother’s brother, John A. Hol¬ 
man. The latter was afterward elected judge, 
thus dissolving the partnership. 

In 1879 he married Elizabeth Holman, 
daughter of George Holman, then a leading 
dry-goods merchant of Indianapolis. Finding 
his law practice to be extensive, but unremunera- 
tive, and having a growing family to be pro¬ 
vided for, he accepted the call to occupy the 
Chair of Science in Kentucky University at 
Lexington. 

He went to Lexington in 1881, and con¬ 
tinued to fill the position of professor of 
science there for over thirty years. Largely 
as a result of his efforts, Andrew Carnegie 

11 



Preface 


was prevailed upon to make a gift to the 
university of the handsome Hall of Science, 
which now adorns the campus. 

After he retired from active teaching, he 
served as pastor in several of the Kentucky 
churches, and spent much time in writing and 
studying. In 1897 he had published his first 
book on the subject of evolution—“ Organic 
Evolution Considered’’ (Standard Publishing 
Co., Cincinnati, 0.). In this first volume, 
written largely for scientists and students of 
evolution, he endeavored to give a general 
statement of the claims of evolution as applied 
to the origin of organic forms, and then 
offered objections which went far toward 
invalidating those claims. 

His second book on the subject, “Theistic 
Evolution” (Standard Publishing Co., Cin¬ 
cinnati, 0.), was published in 1919. This book 
is a most concise and readable treatise on the 
subject, and delightfully entertaining to the 
average reader. In it he emphasized certain 
things to which he thought ministers and 
teachers especially ought to give the most 
thoughtful consideration. He held that the- 
istic evolution destroys the Bible as the in¬ 
spired word of authority in religion as effectual¬ 
ly as does atheistic evolution. In it he warns 
against teaching that evolution is a fact , or a 

science, when it is only a theory , impossible of 

12 



Preface 


verification. Even then, the objections to it, 
he urges, should be presented so that the pupil 
may have both sides to the question. He ex¬ 
presses the belief that the teaching of evolution 
should be eliminated from the primary and 
secondary schools, by law, if necessary, on ac¬ 
count of the immaturity of the pupils and the 
incompetence generally of the teachers of such 
schools to properly present, explain or teach 
the subject. 

The present volume, “ Atheism in Our Uni¬ 
versities/ J represents a study of this angle to the 
subject, and presents material collected over a 
period of several years. One of the pleasantest 
memories of my whole life, and one which will 
linger always, is that of the six weeks’ visit 
which my father paid to my home in Arizona 
just prior to his death. However, instead of 
resting and relaxing during this visit, he was 
continually at work upon the manuscript of 
this book. When urged to rest, he would reply, 
“No, I must finish it.” He was in the best of 
health, yet it seemed as if he knew that his 
time on earth was short. 

For many years before his death he lectured 
in different cities, churches and colleges, on the 
subject of “Science and Religion,” covering 
the entire range of all three of his books on the 
subject of evolution. 


13 



Preface 


My father returned to Lexington from his 
visit at my home, in April, 1921. On the 13th 
of May, following, he suffered a partial stroke 
of paralysis, and the end came peacefully, 
eleven days later. Just three of us are left 
behind—mother, sister Helen, and myself. 

The manuscript here presented in book 
form was published in the winter of 1922 in 
the Christian Standard , in the exact form in 
which my father left the material. He had 
given it a general arrangement, but had not 
had time or opportunity to polish it or correct 
small errors before his death. These he would 
have done before he sent it to the printer, 
had he lived. It has been my great pleasure 
to make these minor corrections in the form, 
so far as I could, but I have not in the least 
changed the subject-matter. I wish that I 
could have been of more assistance in this 
great work, and especially do I wish that I 
could inspire, to greater efforts, those leaders 
of to-day who, happily, are taking up and 
carrying on the good fight in which my father 
pioneered the way—all to the end that the in¬ 
fluence of the Holy Bible as an authority in re¬ 
ligion may never be destroyed, and that Chris¬ 
tianity may be saved to the world in all its 
sacred purity. 

Mary Fairhurst Baughn. 

Phcenix, Ariz., June 28, 1923. 

14 



ATHEISM IN OUR UNIVER¬ 
SITIES 

i. 

LAW. 

Some Introductory Considerations. 

I F we include all things under the head of 
matter and force, then we may define law 
as being the manner in which force acts. The 
study of things that happen mechanically is 
a study of the action of forces. 

The reign of law is not universal in the 
sense that a given quantity of a force—heat, 
for example—necessarily produces one invari¬ 
able result. When mind enters the field, the 
process of producing mechanical results that 
were inevitable gives way to results obtained 
by intelligence, and brought to pass by free 
will. 

It is evident that, under like conditions, a 
given force will act in like ways. In this sense 
law reigns. But conditions are not fixed and 

invariable under the control of mind. They 

15 


Atheism in Our Universities 


are changed by free mind, and one force is 
often converted into another in order to serve 
new purposes. 

The human mind is not under the absolute 
dominion of the forces that prevail in the 
world. Any one of these forces in the inor¬ 
ganic world can be converted by the agency 
of mind into all the others in succession. 
When so changed they are known by differ¬ 
ent names, and are directed into new channels 
to do endless kinds of work. Mind, in control¬ 
ling forces, must take notice of the ways in 
which each force acts. These methods of action 
of forces, laws, do not dominate mind, but 
mind directs the forces for special purposes. 

There are no “laws of nature’’ which pre¬ 
determine what work a given amount of the 
force of gravity shall do. A thousand tons 
of water falling over Niagara may simply 
warm the water which it strikes, or it may 
turn a dynamo that converts the force suc¬ 
cessively into mechanical motion, electricity, 
light, heat, chemical action, magnetism, the 
lifting of weights or the motion of many ma¬ 
chines, for endless purposes. There is noth¬ 
ing in the mechanical processes of nature to 
determine what free mind shall do. Mind is 
an intelligent determining cause that controls 
forces so that they produce countless results 
that could never otherwise happen. 

16 



Atheism in Our Universities 


It has not been determined that the forces 
in the inorganic world can be converted into 
mind, but it is certain that mind can control 
these forces. They are the tools with which 
the mind of man has revolutionized the world. 
The great fact of the correlation of energy, 
and man’s ability at will to bring it about and 
to control energy in all its phases, is of vast 
importance. 

The “reign of law” does not mean the 
subjugation of mind. The human will is not 
a slave in chains at the chariot-wheels of 
“law,” but it is the charioteer with “four in 
hand,” directing the forces of nature to work 
in countless ways. 

The practical results show that the will 
has been free to choose, and conscience is a 
living witness of this truth. The control of 
results in dealing with forces of all kinds, in 
all sciences and in all realms of nature, pro¬ 
claims the supremacy of mind. 

Mechanical force can only move matter. 
All work is done by force overcoming re¬ 
sistance. Kinetic energy is force at work. 
Latent energy is force stored up, as a weight 
at rest. Motions produced in masses of mat¬ 
ter are resultants of the action of more than 
one force. Gravity is always present, produc¬ 
ing a perceptible effect. Cohesion and ad¬ 
hesion oppose the modification of masses of 



Atheism in Our Universities 


matter. Frequently a single force so pre¬ 
dominates that we attribute the entire effect 
to that one force. 

The chemical force will cause almost every 
element to unite with oxygen. But most of 
the oxides of the metals can be decomposed 
with hot carbon. When they are heated with 
carbon, the carbon unites with the oxygen 
of the metal, leaving the latter in the free 
metallic condition. In such cases, we say 
that the affinity of the carbon for the oxygen 
is stronger than the affinity of oxygen for the 
metal. And so we can overcome a countless 
number of chemical affinities by means of 
others. A simple equation will show the com¬ 
mon method in chemistry of obtaining results 
by overcoming one force by means of another, 
AgN03+NaCl=AgCl+NaN03. This equa¬ 
tion represents silver nitrate and sodium 
chloride as reacting on each other in such a 
way as to bring about the decomposition of 
each and the formation of two new com¬ 
pounds. It is evident that in this decomposi¬ 
tion the stronger chemical force has overcome 
the weaker. It is said that the chlorine has 
a stronger affinity for the silver than it has 
for the sodium, and that consequently an 
interchange takes place. 

Light, in photography, decomposes a silver 
compound; electricity decomposes a large 

18 



Atheism in Our Universities 


number of chemical compounds, and heat will 
decompose many inorganic, and the majority 
of organic, compounds. Chemical results, in 
most cases, are brought about by overcoming 
force with force. 

The growth of the plant involves the 
decomposition of mineral compounds that 
serve as plant food. The growing plant ab¬ 
sorbs, through the pores of the leaves, carbon 
dioxide, C02, and, under the influence of sun¬ 
shine, the chloraphyl in the leaves decomposes 
the C02, giving off the oxygen and retaining 
the carbon as food. The roots of the growing 
plant absorb potassium nitrate, and other 
mineral foods in solution in the sap, and the 
life forces in the plant enable it to decompose 
these mineral foods and appropriate the useful 
substances, and elaborate them into organic 
materials, such as woody fiber, starch, sugar, 
vegetable oils, and protoplasm in various forms. 

There is ceaseless warfare in the growing 
plant between the anagenetic (or life) forces 
and the catagenetic (or death) forces. They are 
pitted against each other, and the fact of living 
and growing in the vegetable world is due to 
the continual triumph of life over death—of 
forces in the living world that can overcome the 
forces in the mineral world. Science knows 
no method by which the forces in the mineral 

world can be converted into life forces. Herein 

19 



Atheism in Our Universities 


lies the hopelessness of “spontaneous genera¬ 
tion/ * 

Animal foods, with the exception of salt and 
water, are mostly organic, but these foods must 
be digested and assimilated in order to serve 
their purposes as food. During this process 
many chemical changes take place, involving a 
complex warfare that is not well understood. 
From the same foods, plants manufacture a 
countless number of products, and from like 
animal foods animals organize the most varied 
tissues and many peculiar chemical compounds. 

On every hand, in order to obtain desired 
results, force is pitted against force, and the 
stronger overcomes. The heat of the sun lifts 
the water, and gravity draws it back to the 
surface of the earth. Thus gravitation and 
sunshine are opposed to each other in their 
effects. Each can be converted into the other. 
They are but two phases of the same force. 

If we trace the order of creation by means 
of forces, we have, before life appeared, the 
forces in the dead world. 

Next come the life forces of the plant world 
that can overcome the chemical forces of the 
mineral world. We know of no way to con¬ 
vert the inorganic forces into living forces. 
Ascending to the animal kingdom, we find 
many kinds of feelings and instincts which can 

not be accounted for by means of any forces 

20 



Atheism in Our Universities 


in minerals and plants. Lastly, we ascend to 
the free human mind, with a conscience and 
self-consciousness, and many other powers that 
can not be explained in terms of anything be¬ 
low. Le Conte truthfully says: “From the 
physical point of view, it is simply impossible 
to exaggerate the wideness of the gap that sep¬ 
arates men from even the highest animal.’’ 

If man can direct the forces of nature to 
serve his purposes by producing conflicts of 
forces, is it not possible that God might per¬ 
form miracles without violating the laws of 
nature ? 

Of course, I recognize the existence of law, 
both in the inorganic and organic worlds. 
Astronomy is founded largely on the action 
of gravitation on the heavenly bodies. The 
time of an eclipse can be very accurately deter¬ 
mined, because gravitation reigns. 

Atoms, under like conditions, always unite 
to form compounds of invariable composition, 
so that one analysis of a compound determines 
its fixed composition. Chemistry, the greatest 
of all sciences, is founded on the laws of atoms. 

Physics determines and makes use of the 
laws of some of the forces of nature, such as 
gravity, light, heat and electricity. 

In the above instances the forces work ac¬ 
cording to regular methods, and these methods 
we call laws. 


21 



Atheism in Our Universities 


We know that certain foods and forces 
determine both the form and the growth in 
the vegetable world. The agricultural chemist 
is coming more and more into his own. 

We understand that certain conditions are 
necessary for the existence and well-being of 
men and animals. 

Without the “laws of nature’’ man could 
not exist here. They are his sole means by 
which he plans for the future. A lawless world 
would be a godless world. Regularity in the 
processes of nature is of the utmost importance 
to the well-being of man. 

While this is true, it is also true, as I have 
stated, that a man, a free moral agent, as 
declared by his conscience, is not absolutely 
under the dominion of the forces of nature, 
but he dominates certain quantities of these 
forces to accomplish his purposes. 

His mind is not under the dominion of 
physical force or law, but of moral law. His 
moral freedom elevates him above all else on 
earth. 


22 



II. 


EVOLUTION A FASHION. 

Further Introductory Considerations. 

HE question may well be asked, Why has 



1 there been such a rush by leading men in 
educational positions to adopt the word “ evo¬ 
lution,’ 9 when it is evident that the majority 
of them have given little study to the sub¬ 
ject? The general remark that they make, 
even in their confessed ignorance of the sub¬ 
ject, is that all universities and colleges teach 
it. When interpreted, this remark means: “We 
have counted noses, we have taken the vote, 
and the result is all biologists, all scholars, 
all universities, accept it, and so we are bound 
to believe it.” Thus we extend our democracy 
into the scientific world, and determine truth 
by a popular vote. If you can only get an 
idea started so that people will think that it 
is generally accepted, then the crowd will fall 
into line and yell. The educational world is 
now in that condition with regard to the 
word “evolution.” Seemingly it prefers 
“error” to being considered “out-of-date.” 


23 


Atheism in Our Universities 


Whatever virtue there may be in the word 
when properly used, its acceptance in the 
majority of cases has become a fad. The folly 
of foot-binding by the Chinese, of tight cor¬ 
sets, of high heels and pointed toes, of many 
extreme fashions in clothing and of many 
other objectionable fashions—how can these 
be met? Regiments of soldiers, cannon and 
rapid-fire guns can not defeat a fashion, how¬ 
ever foolish it may be. A fashion is due to 
crooked thinking by the public mind. Many 
years ago, it is said, there was a tulip craze 
in Holland that wrecked fortunes. 

Few persons will dare to take a firm stand 
against a fashion in dress. This season’s style 
of hat, dress or coat may not do at all for next 
season, although one’s judgment may approve 
the old rather than the new. Origin, propriety 
and cost do not figure largely with most 
people. Style, the latest thing, wins. To be 
fashionably dressed is considered by many a 
mark of good breeding. To many people it is 
very uncomfortable not to be dressed in 
fashion. 

A fashion represents only a form of cur¬ 
rent thought, which, like an earthquake, has 
somewhere a center. It propagates by conta¬ 
gion. It is mighty and must be noticed. The 
unwary are captured and bound. Reason, 

logic, precedent, poverty and cleverness are 

24 



Atheism in Our Universities 


not proof against it. All must submit, if they 
would be recognized. 

A fashion is possible only because people 
are content to let others dictate to them. The 
mass of the public walks intellectually in 
chains; they travel the lines of least intellec¬ 
tual resistance marked out by others. 

There have been fashions in all depart¬ 
ments of life—in religious thought, in politics, 
in systems of philosophy, in eating and drink¬ 
ing, in sports and in all kinds of dress. The 
prevalent fad now among the college-bred 
and among those who have some claim to 
education is evolution. Any up-to-date col¬ 
lege man from most of our institutions is 
proud to claim that he is “an evolutionist.’’ 
In fact, he is afraid not to do so. To him it 
represents the latest culture—the finishing 
touch, without which a gentleman’s educa¬ 
tion would not be complete. 

Generally, he does not know what the word 
means. He may not have been in a class 
where evolution was taught, but, in some way, 
he has heard that it is the accepted “science,” 
and so, by adoption, he makes it a part of his 
education. Perhaps he may have heard that 
the Eocene horse had four toes in front and 
that the Archaeopteryx had a lengthened verte- 
brated tail—conclusive evidence to him of 
the ancestry of the modern horse and birds! 

25 



Atheism in Our Universities 


The great number of the unsolvable problems 
in the theory, however, have never been pre¬ 
sented to him. Still, he takes great comfort 
in believing the theory, for he feels that it 
places him in good company. 

I have even heard a professor say that 
w T hen his son shall go to a leading institution 
to obtain an advanced course, he would feel 
ashamed to say that he was not an evolution¬ 
ist. And yet the evolution taught in such an 
institution is, in all probability, atheistic or 
agnostic, if reports can be trusted. I have 
heard this same professor say that he did 
not study science more than a year in 
college, that he is not a zoologist, but that he 
accepts the theory of evolution because it 
represents the consensus of scientific opinion. 

Many of the vital facts involved in this 
theory are not difficult to understand. I take 
it that no man is under obligation to accept 
this theory without inquiring into the facts 
upon which it is based. It is true that the 
universal theory in all of its details is of vast 
proportions. Few have the time and knowl¬ 
edge fully to understand it. The differences 
of opinion, as shown by answers to my ques¬ 
tionnaire, show some of the diversities of 
opinion on the subject. It seems to me that, 
in this case, a suspended judgment would be 

a virtue. If I were called upon to determine 

26 




Atheism in Our Universities 


the architecture and strength of materials for 
a great suspension bridge, I might well pause 
without considering that I had disgraced my 
judgment. That would certainly be quite as 
safe as to join in a fad, even if I acknowl¬ 
edged my ignorance. 

Many of those who have answered my 
questionnaire, it is evident, have simply echoed 
current opinion. Some presidents of univer¬ 
sities have said, “We can not answer your 
questions because we have not the scientific 
knowledge,’’ but they have expressed the 
opinion that evolution is taught in all higher 
institutions of learning. It is evident, how¬ 
ever, that they attach different meanings to 
the word “evolution.” Some seem to think 
that it comprehends all the changes that have 
taken place in the history of the world. All 
people agree as to continual changes, but 
change alone is not evolution. The majority, 
probably, apply the word to organic evolu¬ 
tion, and admit miracles as a part of the proc¬ 
ess. They consider it to be partly a natural 
and partly a supernatural process. Many 
Christians accept this statement as to method 
of creation. 

But evolution in its widest sense is entirely 
naturalistic. Its only data are matter and 
force, or, if it is theistic, it confines God to 

natural processes, and thus eliminates the 

27 



Atheism in Our Universities 


supernatural. According to this theory, all 
religion is naturalism, and the Bible is only 
a human book, to be judged simply as litera¬ 
ture. 

A recent writer aptly says: “Naturalism 
has run riot for twenty years, to go no fur¬ 
ther back, and we are still smeared with it.” 
An acute critic has said that, if it was the 
task of the last century to put man into na¬ 
ture, it is the task of this century to get him 
out again. He is still neck deep in it, having 
followed nature to “the last ditch and ditch 
water. ’’ 

The existence of man’s spiritual nature and 
the need of spiritual culture in our educational 
system have been largely neglected in our 
chase after material results. The minds of 
many are still wallowing in gross materialism 
in trying to prove that man is only the highest 
animal. On this low plane man can never 
command much respect. As a son of God 
with an immortal soul, his entire relation to 
time and a spiritual world is changed. 

If man is made to feel that he is born to 
perish like the brute, his soul is warped and 
stunted. It is only in the light of a limit¬ 
less expanding future that the soul is at 
its best. 

Our modern education is too material—too 
much grasping after material results. “Will 

28 



Atheism in Our Universities 


it enable me to add to my wealth ? ” is too often 
the question. “Will it help me to live a 
model life?” ought to be a fundamental ques¬ 
tion in education. College curricula are not 
shaped in the interest of character, but most¬ 
ly with regard to getting on in the world. It 
sometimes happens that the alumnus, who 
ought to stand for what is best for society, 
is only an educated knave. His knowledge, 
unguided by character, is only “German 
kultur. ’ ’ 

I take it for granted that no man who 
does not stand for a high order of character 
ought to be a member of a college Faculty. 
If a man is an atheist or an agnostic, he ought 
not to be allowed to impose his views upon 
Christian young people. Liberty to teach 
does not mean liberty to destroy Christian 
faith. I know that it is said that the Chris¬ 
tian young man when he enters college is con¬ 
fronted with the problem of adjusting his 
faith to the new problems of science, and 
that it becomes necessary for him to adjust his 
theology to science. This is said especially 
with regard to evolution, which is regarded 
as “science.” 

Evolution, as I have claimed in another 
chapter, is but a philosophy of creation 
founded from beginning to end upon an im¬ 
probable series of assumptions. Christianity 

29 



Atheism in Our Universities 


is under no obligation to do obeisance to this 
materialistic philosophy. 

But the student must take notice, we are 
told, of the contradiction between Genesis and 
geology as to creation. Taking the days in 
Genesis to be indefinite periods, as do Sir 
William Dawson and Prof. Joseph Le Conte, 
the matter of conflict disappears. Both of 
these high authorities accept the account in 
Genesis. 

The presidents of universities and colleges 
generally have it in their power to determine 
who the members of their Faculties shall be. 
They preside over the future intellectual and 
moral destiny of the young people in their 
charge. It is their duty to know the charac¬ 
ters of professors and the quality of what 
they teach. They are to see that “academic 
freedom” is not made an excuse for teaching 
all kinds of destructive doctrines. The athe¬ 
ist, the agnostic and the materialist have no 
rightful claim to a place on a college Faculty. 
The public does not support State universities 
for the propagation of atheism. A godless 
philosophy aims at the very foundations of 
Christian civilization. Those in authority are 
ignorantly bearing with godless teaching in 
many of the highest institutions. Christian 
young men and women are being ignorantly 

subjected to the assaults of a godless philoso- 

30 



Atheism in Our Universities 


phy under the name of ‘ ‘ evolution. * * They 
have neither the ability nor the information 
to resist the attacks. 

‘‘Academic freedom” is but a thin cloak 
under which all villainies seek to hide. A 
godless philosophy is more destructive of 
human welfare than Krupp cannon and “U” 
boats. A godless spiritual dwarf, whose faith 
and hope and high aspirations have been para¬ 
lyzed by a destructive philosophy under the 
name of the “scientific method,” is the most 
worthless member of society. Without an 
abiding, inspiring faith his life is zero. 

A Christian had two sons. He sent the 
older one, a very bright boy, to a university. 
He graduated with honor. He brought home 
much Latin and Greek and things he had 
learned, but he left his Christian faith behind. 
The teaching he got did the work. The second 
son was kept at home. He was a great worker 
in the church and a man of undimmed faith. 
Must a university, dependent on public funds, 
be so organized as to destroy Christian faith? 

A father wrote to me in great agony, saying 
that he had sent his son to Illinois State Uni¬ 
versity; that when he sent him he was an ex¬ 
cellent Christian worker in the church, but 
that a teacher of philosophy in that university 
had destroyed his son’s faith. Was that young 

man’s education an improvement? 

31 



Atheism in Our Universities 


I was recently told by a young man who 
had attended Missouri State University the 
last two years that they have a three years’ 
course in biology, and that 60 per cent, of the 
students who take that course come out atheists. 
Are we to conclude from this that 60 per cent, 
of the parents of these young people want that 
kind of teaching? Are atheists in professors’ 
chairs to carry on their destructive work, un¬ 
opposed, with a high and mighty hand? Is the 
public helpless in their hands? Is there no 
remedy by which Christian young people can 
be saved from the clutches of these ghouls? 

About a year ago I visited a classroom in 
Ohio State University at Columbus to hear a 
professor of zoology lecture to a mixed class of 
about seventy-five young men and women on 
evolution. During the lecture a young woman 
asked the professor substantially this question: 
“Is the doctrine of evolution consistent with 
the Christian religion?” I was told by one 
who sat near the professor that he answered 
in substance: “It makes no difference to me 
whether there is a God or not.” His answer 
was understood to be a declaration of his athe¬ 
ism. I was told by a young woman there, who 
was ready to enter the Senior year, that three- 
fourths of the professors in that university 
were atheists, and that the other fourth were 

agnostics and Christians. It was also told by 

32 



Atheism in Our Universities 


a student that the library on evolution contains 
two or three hundred volumes in favor of the 
theory and only two or three against it. This 
shows that the art of lying has there been re¬ 
duced to a science. It can easily be seen that 
there are more ways of lying than one. The 
process can easily be shown in the selection of 
a library. The men who teach the subject and 
select the books understand the advantage of 
one-sidedness. 

Leland Stanford University has an unen¬ 
viable reputation as to the effect of its teaching 
on Christian students. I have given a quota¬ 
tion on this in connection with that university. 

I am constrained to believe that many of 
our leading universities are in some depart¬ 
ments destroying the Christian faith of young 
men and women. I have spoken on this sub¬ 
ject in various places, and have repeatedly been 
told that, as to destructive teaching in the uni¬ 
versities, my statements are correct. 

I am not unmindful of the many excellent 
things that are taught in our great universities. 
It is true that, in many respects, their teaching 
excels, but it is also true that, owing to the 
harmful teaching in some departments, many 
Christian men will not send their sons and 
daughters to them. 

The following is from the Christian-Evan- 
gelist, Dec. 23, 1920: 

3 


33 



Atheism in Our Universities 


“The Federal Council of the Churches of 
Christ in America in the Fourth 
Quadrennial Meeting. 

“A Survey of the Religious, Moral and 
Economic Needs of the World. 

“In this survey we have the following: 

“Polite, Suave and Apologetic Skepticism. 

‘‘ There is everywhere in this country, 
especially in our high institutions of learning, 
a skepticism—polite, suave and apologetic— 
far more deadly than any ever known here be¬ 
fore, in the opinion of Rev. Charles L. Thomp¬ 
son, president of the Home Missions Council, 
who discussed a nation-wide program for Chris¬ 
tianizing American life, at the evening session 
in Ford’s Hall. 

“ ‘This skepticism,’ continued Rev. Mr. 
Thompson, ‘is all the more insidious for the 
reason that it can be recognized only as the 
approach of an iceberg is recognized by mari¬ 
ners, through the icy chill which permeates the 
atmosphere at its approach. ... We must 
vitalize our Christianity and our Christian 
forces. The time has come when America will 
no longer stand aside and see the world drift 
toward disorder and from revelation.’ ” 


34 




Ill, 


DESIGN IN NATURE. 

I DESIRE to point out certain facts that in¬ 
dicate an intelligent Creator in connection 
with the world’s history. The existence of 
an intelligent, directing Creator seems to me 
to be clearly manifested in the preparation of 
the world for living things. There was prob¬ 
ably a long period, before life appeared, dur¬ 
ing which the earth was losing energy in the 
form of heat. It was a dying world, so far 
as energy is concerned. Some may think of 
the changes that were taking place as evolu¬ 
tion, but it was not evolution in the sense in 
which the word is applied to the organic 
world. The two processes are fundamentally 
different. 

I assume that the existence and well-being 
of man physically and mentally was a design 
worthy of an intelligent Creator. 

There are fewer than one hundred known 
simple substances in the composition of the 
earth. Four of these elements—namely, car¬ 
bon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen—are 

35 


Atheism in Our Universities 


necessary for all plants and animals. Sixteen 
elements compose the human body. If any 
one of the four elements had been left out, 
no living thing, so far as we know, could 
exist. The existence of the human being re¬ 
quires the presence of most, if not all, of the 
sixteen elements. Carbon exists in the earth 
in small per cent. It is deposited in carbon¬ 
ates, in coal, carbonaceous shale, petroleum 
and in gas. The atmosphere contains one 
volume of carbon dioxide in thirty-three 
hundred. 

Plants are dependent for their supply of 
carbon on the small fraction of one per cent, 
of carbon dioxide in the air. If carbon had 
been absent from the earth, or carbon dioxide 
from the air, plants, consequently animals, 
could not exist. All of the carbon dioxide 
might have been bound up in carbonates or 
other forms not available for plant growth. 
The carbon dioxide of the air is being con¬ 
stantly renewed by the combustion of fuel, 
by the decomposition of carbonates by means 
of organic acids, and by the decay of organic 
matter and exhalations from animals, so that 
the supply for plant growth promises to be of 
long duration. 

Oxygen constitutes more than 40 per cent, 
of the earth’s crust, nine-tenths of the weight 

of water and about 23 per cent, of the weight 

36 



Atheism in Our Universities 


of the atmosphere. It combines with most of 
the other elements directly. If there had 
been much less oxygen than there is, it might 
all have combined to help form the solid crust 
of the earth, leaving none for water and air, 
in which case life, as we have it, could not 
exist. The same result would have followed 
if the balance after forming solids had all 
been used up in forming water, leaving none 
free for the air, in which case no animal life 
could exist. It was necessary that oxygen 
should be sufficiently abundant to unite with 
most of the simple substances that form the 
earth’s crust, to help form water to the extent 
of two miles in depth if spread over the whole 
earth and still have a residue free for the air. 
It must be present and in certain quantity to 
serve the purpose. 

Nitrogen is a third element that is a neces¬ 
sary part of every living thing. Its com¬ 
pounds in the crust of the earth are very 
limited in quantity. It comprises about 77 
per cent, of the weight of the air. It com¬ 
bines directly with but few elements. Its 
compounds in the earth, in the form of 
nitrates, ammonium compounds and certain 
organic substances, are very soluble in water, 
and are being washed away continually by 
running water. The atmosphere is the in¬ 
exhaustible source of nitrogen for plants. 

37 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Nitrogen dilutes the oxygen of the air so 
that it is less rapid in its oxidizing effects, 
and thus reduces danger from conflagrations. 
It is evident that, if the amount of nitrogen 
in the air were greatly increased so as to 
dilute the oxygen much more than it is, the 
efficiency of oxygen in creating high tempera¬ 
tures for the reduction of metals and other 
purposes would be greatly decreased. 

Hydrogen, the lightest known substance, 
is a fourth element that must exist for every 
living thing. It exists mostly combined with 
oxygen in the form of water. If it existed in 
quantity large enough to combine with all 
the oxygen to form water, no life could exist. 

What are the probabilities, according to 
any chance, that these four elements, each 
necessary for living things, would occur and 
in the proper quantities to render them avail¬ 
able for lifef We are here in a region where 
evolution is absolutely unavailable. 

When we ask this question with regard to 
the sixteen elements that compose the human 
body, how infinitely impossible it seems that 
these should all be present by chance. We 
know that most of these substances are neces¬ 
sary. Calcium and phosphorus and oxygen 
are necessary for the phosphate of the bones; 
sodium and chlorine in the form of common 

salt are necessary; sulphur, potassium, mag- 

38 



Atheism in Our Universities 


nesium, iron and probably other elements are 
also necessary. The building materials for the 
human body did not happen here by chance. 
A wise Architect planned in advance the 
building of man’s body. 

All of the above elements, except some salt 
and water, come ultimately through plants. 
The design shown in preparing food for plants 
is supplemented and strengthened by the use 
of plant substances as food for men and 
animals. 

The plant is a conservative organism. It 
stores up energy in the form of organic com¬ 
pounds, which animals use as food. The 
plant is a deoxidizing agent. The animal is 
an oxidizing agent. It burns up materials 
which plants have prepared. The plant and 
the animal largely supplement each other in 
their work. 

A designing Creator was looking forward 
in many ways, not only to the coming of man, 
but to the coming of a progressive man who 
could fully take possession of and have 
dominion over the whole earth, and utilize the 
many things placed here for his benefit. 

The many kinds of food widely distributed 
over the earth, adapted to man’s use; the vari¬ 
ous things that can be converted into clothing 
for his protection and comfort; the great 

storehouses of coal, carbonaceous shale, petro- 

39 


t 



Atheism in Our Universities 


leum, gas and wood for fuel; the building 
materials available for shelter; the numerous 
metals and metallic ores that have been 
brought more and more into use as knowledge 
has increased—these, and many other things, 
speak of a far-reaching intelligence that was 
contriving for the physical and spiritual well¬ 
being of man. 

“But,” says one, “there are so many things 
in which I can see no design.” The absence of 
our ability to see design is, I take it, only an 
indication of our ignorance. The savage fails 
to discover and to use most of the metals and 
other elements and their compounds. His 
ignorance blinds him and prevents him from 
understanding the uses of things. Blessings 
come as a reward for rightly exercising the 
powers that have been given us. Nature re¬ 
veals her secrets to the intelligent, persistent 
inquirer. 

There may be many things in which we 
can see no design, and yet if there are some 
things in which we can see design, this fact 
unmistakably proclaims a designer. The 
Patent Office of the United States contains 
hundreds of thousands of models. It is not 
necessary for us to understand each model 
before we can logically conclude that some 
have been designed. When we look at a great 
printing-press we are constrained to ask: 

40 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Which is greater, the printing-press or the 
man who designed it? When we see the vast 
provision in this world for the well-being of 
men physically and spiritually, we ask: 
Which is greater, the things designed or He 
who designed them? 

I have not dwelt upon the adaptations of 
organisms to their environment, for the reason 
that it is claimed that these adaptations have 
been produced by evolution, but I have con¬ 
sidered those things which, for the most part, 
are beyond the process of evolution. 


41 



IV. 


SPONTANEOUS GENERATION. 

T HE theory of universal evolution neces¬ 
sarily includes spontaneous generation. 
This fact has been recognized by many lead¬ 
ing writers on evolution. Prof. H. W. Conn, 
of the Wesleyan University, in the “Method 
of Evolution’* says: “For a long time, the 
term ‘evolution’ was to most persons synony¬ 
mous with the idea of organic evolution, the 
broader aspects of the problem being over¬ 
looked. The term ‘evolution’ is certainly 
much broader than the simple problem of the 
origin of plants and animals. At the same 
time, it is so evident that organic evolution 
forms the keystone of the evolutionary arch, 
without which it would fall to pieces, that the 
whole debate for years centered around the 
problem of organic evolution.” 

Le Conte says: “Evolution is universal. 
The process pervades the whole universe, and 
the doctrine concerns alike every department 
of science—yea, every department of human 

thought. Therefore, its truth or falseness, 

42 


Atheism in Our Universities 


its acceptance or rejection, is no trifling mat¬ 
ter, affecting only one small corner of the 
thought realm. ... It determines the whole 
attitude of the mind towards God.” 

As a universal process it necessarily in¬ 
cludes the origin of living things. 

Professor Conn further says: ‘ ‘An impor¬ 
tant part of the evolution problem is, of 
course, the origin of life, which appears to 
mean the origin of the first protoplasm. Upon 
this subject it must be confessed we are in as 
deep ignorance as ever. Indeed, if anything, 
the disclosures of the modern microscope have 
placed the solution of this problem even 
further from our grasp. So long as we could 
regard protoplasm as a chemical compound, 
definite though complex, so long was it possi¬ 
ble to believe that its origin in the past geo¬ 
logical ages was a simple matter of chemical 
affinity. It was easy to assume that under the 
conditions of earlier ages, when chemical ele¬ 
ments were necessarily placed in different re¬ 
lations from those of to-day, chemical opera¬ 
tions could arise which would result in the 
formation of the complex body—protoplasm. 
This has been the supposition that has laid 
the foundation of the various suggestions as 
to the origin of life. But, having now learned 
that this life substance is not a chemical com¬ 
pound, but a mechanism, and that its prop- 

43 



Atheism in Our Universities 


erties are dependent upon its mechanism, 
.such a conception of the origin of life is no 
longer tenable. In its place must be substi¬ 
tuted some forces which build a mechanism. 
But even our most extreme evolutionists have 
not yet suggested any method of bridging 
the chasm, and, at the present time, we must 
recognize that the problem of the origin of 
life is in greater obscurity than ever. The 
origin of chemical compounds we may ex¬ 
plain, but their combinations into the organic 
machine which we call protoplasm is, at pres¬ 
ent, unimaginable. ” 

“So far as we know, unorganized 'proto¬ 
plasm does not exist. The properties of life 
appear to be manifested by nothing simpler 
than the organic cell. Everything that grows 
and reproduces is in some way differentiated 
into cells, and the cell seems to be thus the 
simplest condition of matter which can mani¬ 
fest the properties of life. But the cell is any¬ 
thing but simple. It consists of many parts 
acting in adjustment to each other. The more 
it is studied the more complex it appears. . . . 
It acts rather as a machine. It must be re¬ 
garded as a mechanism, and can not be called 
a chemical compound. Its properties are the 
properties of the cell as a mechanism and not 
of the cell as a chemical compound. ... If we 

trace variation to * organic composition/ it 

44 




Atheism in Our Universities 


must be to the mechanical rather than the 
chemical composition of this substance. . . . 
With all our research, the essence and origin 
of life has thus far eluded our grasp. The 
scientist should go no further than the evi¬ 
dence leads him, and should not indulge too 
much in philosophical speculation.” 

This advice the evolutionists are slow to 
take. 

Darwin said that “the inquiry as to how 
life first originated is hopeless.” 

Tyndall concluded, after nearly a thousand 
experiments with organic infusion, that, so far 
as his experiments showed, living things come 
only from the living. 

Komanes said: “The theory of descent 
starts from life as a datum already granted. 
. . . Science is not in a position to furnish so 
much as any suggestion upon the subject; and 
therefore our wisdom as men of science is to 
frankly acknowledge that such is the case.” 
(“Darwin and after Darwin,” p. 15.) 

Professor Dana, in his “Manual of Geol¬ 
ogy,” says: “Science has no explanation of the 
origin of life. The living organism, instead 
of being a product of physical forces, 
controls these forces for its higher forms, 
functions and purposes. Its introduction 
was the grandest event in the world’s early 
history.” 


45 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Professor Tyndall said: “I share Virchow’s 
opinion that the theory of evolution, in its 
complete form, involves the assumption that 
at some period or other of the earth’s history 
there occurred what would now be called spon¬ 
taneous generation; but I agree with him that 
the proofs of it are wanting. I hold also with 
Virchow that the failures have been so lamenta¬ 
ble that the doctrine is utterly discredited.” 

Prof. Lionel S. Beale said: “There is a 
gulf between life and non-life that is unfathom¬ 
able, and I can not believe it will ever be 
bridged.” 

In 1893 Lord Kelvin said, in an address: 
“Forty years ago I asked Liebig, walking 
somewhere in the country, if he believed that 
the grass and flowers which we saw around us 
grew by mere chance force. He answered: 
‘No; no more than I believe that a book of 
botany describing them could grow by mere 
chemical force. ... It is not in dead matter 
that men live, move and have their being, but 
in creative and directive power which science 
compels us to accept as an article of faith. Is 
there anything so absurd as to believe that a 
number of atoms, by falling together of their 
own accord, could make a crystal, a microbe, 
or a living animal?’ ” 

“The Origin and Evolution of Life,” by 

H. F. Osborn, contains one of the most recent 

46 



Atheism in Our Universities 


efforts to account for spontaneous generation. 
The author, after devoting nearly one-half of 
a large volume to this subject, ends with this 
conclusion: “The more modern scientific opin¬ 
ion is that life arose from a recombination of 
forces pre-existing in the cosmos/ ’ His sup¬ 
posed facts in favor of spontaneous generation 
end in stating an opinion. But why call it a 
“scientific opinion”f That “life comes only 
from life” is an accepted fact of science. In 
the face of this admitted fact why should a 
“scientific opinion >f that living things come 
from dead matter and force have any stand¬ 
ing ? It is because spontaneous generation 
must be accepted by the evolutionist. His only 
factors, as he claims, before life appeared, 
were matter and force. These furnish, theo¬ 
retically, a scientific basis and exclude the 
supernatural. To admit God into the process, 
to admit a miracle or any other supernatural 
event, is beyond the province of science. The 
evolutionist, in his vain endeavor to exclude 
God, must hold that life comes from non-life. 
There is no escape from this conclusion which 
contradicts the known facts. 

Jordan and Kellogg, in “Evolution and 
Animal Life,” page 41, say: “Finally, we may 
refer briefly to the ‘grand problem’ of the 
origin of life itself. Any treatment of this 

question is bound to be wholly theoretical. 

47 



Atheism in Our Universities 


We do not know a single thing about it. We 
have some negative evidence. That is, we 
have no recorded instance—and men have 
searched diligently for examples of spontaneous 
generation. No protoplasm has been seen, or 
otherwise proved, to come into existence except 
through the agency of already existing proto¬ 
plasm. All life comes from life. The biologist 
can not admit spontaneous generation in the 
face of the scientific evidence he has. On the 
other hand, he has difficulty in understanding 
how life could have originated in any other 
way than through some transformation from 
inorganic matter.’’ 

The authors have just stated that “all life 
comes from life.” This being true, it is cer¬ 
tainly not easy for the “biologist” to under¬ 
stand how life can come from death by spon¬ 
taneous generation—by the action of force 
upon dead mineral matter. He must claim it. 
He must deny the known fact in favor of his 
theory. Is this science? 

Prof. E. D. Cope says, in the “Introduc¬ 
tion to Primary Factors of Organic Evolu¬ 
tion”: “The doctrine of evolution may be 
defined as the teaching which holds that crea¬ 
tion has been and is accomplished by the 
agency of the energies which are intrinsic in 
the evolving matter, and without interference 

of agencies that are external to it. It holds 

48 



Atheism in Our Universities 


this to be true of the combinations and forms 
of inorganic nature as well.” This definition 
renders spontaneous generation necessary. 
Cope further says: “Failure of the attempts 
to demonstrate spontaneous generation will 
prove, if continued, fatal to this theory.’’ 

He also recognizes two classes of force. 
He says: “I have termed these classes the ana- 
genetic, which are exclusively vital, and the 
catagenetic, which are physical and chemical. 
The anagenetic class tends to upward progress 
in the organic sense; that is, towards the in¬ 
creasing control of its environment by the or¬ 
ganism, and towards the progressive develop¬ 
ment of consciousness and mind. The cata¬ 
genetic energies tend to the creation of a stable 
equilibrium of matter, in which molar motion 
is not produced from within, and sensation is 
impossible. In popular language the one class 
of energies tends to life; the other to death.” 

Both of these classes of energy are mani¬ 
fested in the growth of a tree, in which the 
life forces of the tree during growth overcome 
the inorganic forces in the carbon dioxide and 
other plant foods, and thus obtain their nour¬ 
ishment. When the plant dies the death forces 
prevail, and its substance is finally reduced to 
the stable inorganic forms of matter. 

Again, Cope says: “If the tendency of the 

catagenetic energies is away from vital phe- 
4 49 



Atheism in Our Universities 


nomena, it is impossible that they, or any of 
them, should be the cause of the origin of 
living matter. This logical inference is con¬ 
firmed by the failure of all attempts to demon¬ 
strate spontaneous generation of living organ¬ 
isms from inorganic matter.” 

Herbert Spencer spent much time in trying 
to establish evolution on “matter, motion and 
force” as the only data. I need not add that 
he proved nothing in favor of spontaneous 
generation. As an agnostic, he referred all 
to the “unknown and unknowable” power. 

It is evident from the preceding that spon¬ 
taneous generation is a necessary part of evolu¬ 
tion; that the efforts to prove it true have re¬ 
sulted in total failure, and that the fact that 
life comes only from life is the established fact 
of science. The very basis of organic evolu¬ 
tion is thus eliminated. The theory can have 
no standing even as a philosophy, since it 
plainly contradicts a well-known fact. It be¬ 
gins evolution without a beginning—without 
a living thing. 


50 



y. 


FAILURES OF EVOLUTION. 

1 SUBMIT a summary of some of the more 
evident places where, in the progress of 
events, naturalism fails to account for what 
has taken place. 

It is well to remember that changes have 
taken place through the long ages of the 
earth’s history, but to call all of these changes 
evolution in the Darwinian sense is entirely 
misleading. I have elsewhere considered this. 

I think it is evident that intelligence and 
design, calling for more than natural forces 
can accomplish, are manifested in the history 
of the earth. I believe that the supernatural, 
including what we call miracles, has often 
occurred, and yet without violating the so- 
called “laws of nature.” These “laws” are 
only the methods according to which the forces 
of nature act. As I have stated elsewhere, the 
natural forces, under the control of intelligence 
and free will, can be made to bring about 
many different results that would otherwise 

not occur. I believe that the history of the 

51 


Atheism in Our Universities 


world has been under the control of God, and 
that he has exercised his power in both a 
natural and a supernatural way. 

The expression “laws of nature” is liable 
to be misleading when applied to the action 
of free mind which can choose and determine 
results produced by forces. The “laws of na¬ 
ture” are not forces and they govern nothing. 

There can be no conflict between the natural 
and the supernatural, for God is the author of 
both. Neither includes nor excludes the other. 

As to design in the mind of an intelligent 
God, I have claimed that the physical and 
spiritual well-being of man, made in the image 
of God, is entirely worthy of Deity. 

Evolution, naturalism, fails, among others, 
in the following respects: 

1. It can not account for the simple sub¬ 
stances of the right kinds and quantities that 
are necessary for the bodies of all living things. 
There is no possibility that evolution could 
have prepared these elements by chance nor 
that the process could have provided the six¬ 
teen elements that are components of the body 
of man. I have referred to this in a previous 
chapter. 

2. The origin of life is beyond evolution to 
account for. All attempts to discover life’s 
origin have been hopeless failures. “All life 

comes from life” is the "known fact. That a 

52 



Atheism in Our Universities 


living, self-nonrishing, self-propagating being 
has been produced by dead, inorganic matter 
and the forces of nature is, and must be, 
assumed as the beginning of the process of 
organic evolution. This assumption is the 
necessary foundation of the whole theory. 
This violent assumption is a strange beginning 
for the so-called “scientific doctrine’’ of evolu¬ 
tion. The word “science” implies knowledge 
and not assumption. 

3. Evolution can give no account of the 
separation of the organic world into plants 
and animals. Plants alone can live on in¬ 
organic food, while animals live mostly on 
organic food. Plants are deoxydizing agents; 
animals, oxydizing. Without the plant the 
animal can not exist. The functions of the 
two are largely opposed to each other. Evolu¬ 
tion knows nothing as to how the two groups of 
organisms ever became so widely separated. 
The plant is engaged largely in storing up 
energy and the animal in dissipating energy. 

4. Evolution fails to explain in any way 
the origin of sex. The first organisms, accord¬ 
ing to this theory, were individual plant cells, 
which multiplied by the division of the nucleus 
and the constriction of the cell into two parts, 
thus becoming two new organisms. This is the 
simplest known method of reproduction. In 

the sexual method of reproduction two unlike 

53 



Atheism in Our Universities 


cells, generally from male and female individ¬ 
uals, unite in a wonderful and complex way, 
thus producing one new individual. The 
changes that take place in this process have 
been described by Komanes as among the most 
wonderful that the microscope has ever re¬ 
vealed. 

5. If you try to imagine how the sub-king¬ 
doms of animals branched from a common an¬ 
cestral stock, you only laugh at your folly. 
Try to think of fish, brachiopod, trilobite, 
spider, coral-forming polyp, onthoceras and 
insect as branching from a common stock! 
These, and many other forms, appeared early 
in the geological history of the earth. We 
are required by the theory to accept without 
evidence the statement that they branched from 
a common stock. 

6. Evolution knows nothing whatever as to 
how any of the organs of the body have origi¬ 
nated. The feeble effort which she makes to 
explain the origin of legs from no legs is indeed 
laughable, if not pitiable. The effort rather 
excites one’s contempt for the man who makes 
the ignoble effort. It has been truthfully said 
that “you can not get blood out of a turnip.” 

No wonder that Darwin almost had a cold 
chill when he considered the evolution of the 
eyes of vertebrates. I almost lose my respect 

for the human mind when I see men trying 

54 



Atheism in Our Universities 


to trace the evolution of the human eye from 
“eyespecks” that are found in starfishes and 
other low forms. The faith required to believe 
it true is far greater than the faith of Abra 
ham. Evolution demands of its devotee gulli¬ 
bility at every step. Bergson, in his 11 Creative 
Evolution,” pages 64 and 65, calls attention to 
some of the insuperable difficulties of account¬ 
ing for the evolution of eyes. We know noth¬ 
ing as to the origin of any of the numerous 
eyes, legs, wings and other organs that exist in 
the animal kingdom. Endless “ifs” and “pre¬ 
sumptions” and “assumptions” are necessary 
at every step of evolution. But it is said that 
it all occurred according to the “scientific proc¬ 
ess!” It is claimed that the fact of organic 
evolution needs no further proof. (?) Dr. 
Romanes has shown that the electric organs of 
certain fishes can not have been preserved be¬ 
cause useful nor for any other known reason. 
He presents this as a vital fact against 
Darwinism. 

7. Evolution only guesses at the origin of 
mammals. Remains of the oldest known mam¬ 
mals of the size of rats and mice have been 
found in the Triassic of the Mesozoic age. 
During all of this age, which was quite long 
geologically, no larger mammals than rats and 
mice are known to have existed. How these 
warm-blooded mammals with non-nucleated 

55 



Atheism in Our Universities 


red blood corpuscles, and covered with hair, 
and possessing milk glands developed for nurs¬ 
ing their young, could have been evolved from 
a cold-blooded reptile with nucleated red 
blood corpuscles and with no milk glands and 
covered with scales, is a problem for the evolu¬ 
tionist which he easily solves by saying that 
it undoubtedly took place. We imagine the 
small, lizard-like vertebrates reclining in the 
Mesozoic sunshine, clasping their young to their 
bosoms in order to induce the milk of kind¬ 
ness to flow into the mouths of their hungry 
offspring. The nursing instinct in both mother 
and offspring and the milk glands must all 
appear at the same time, otherwise the process 
fails. It all had to be developed suddenly in 
a single generation in order to succeed, and 
then to be handed down to their posterity. It 
was easy and simple to evolve the hair of these 
mammals from the scales of the lizards because 
the two are homologous. These “scientific” 
facts necessary to “scientific evolution” are 
easily verified by the use of the scientific ira- 
agination. The beauty of the whole process 
is that it is scientific, and does not need God. 
It needs only matter and blind force. 

Immediately after the Cretaceous of the 
Mesozoic age, in which only a few remains of 
mammals have been found, and which belonged 

to animals of the size of rats and mice, there 

56 



Atheism in Our Universities 


appeared in the Tertiary of the Cenozoic age 
many large mammals of many kinds belonging 
to various orders. These were found in great 
abundance and were widely scattered. Among 
the mammals was the zeuglodon whale, seventy 
feet long, which existed in the Gulf of Mexico. 
The only known geological source from which 
these numerous large mammals could have 
been derived was the few extremely small mam¬ 
mals of the Cretaceous. There is no evidence 
that they thus originated. That this whale was 
evolved from some land mammal which was 
forced into the sea to seek its food is an as¬ 
sumption that evolution must accept without 
proof. But the stress, or the distress, of abso¬ 
lute necessity declares that the whale thus 
originated. Thus the process of evolution glides 
merrily along and every chasm is easily bridged 
with a new assumption. 

8. The absence of connecting links can not 
be accounted for by evolution. Mr. Darwin 
says: ‘‘I do not pretend that I should ever 
have suspected how poor was the record in the 
best preserved geological sections, had not the 
absence of innumerable transitional links be¬ 
tween the species which lived at the commence¬ 
ment and close of each formation pressed so 
hardly on my theory.” If the “transitional 
links” ever existed, their absence can not be 

accounted for. They were composed of the 

57 



Atheism in Our Universities 


same kinds of materials as those preserved. 
Romanes speaks of the geological record as a 
“chapter of accidents /’ because of the fewness 
of necessary connecting links. 

Again, Darwin says: “The number, both of 
specimens and of species, preserved in our 
museums, is absolutely as nothing compared 
with the number of generations which must 
have passed away, even during a single forma¬ 
tion. ’ ’ 

Le Conte says: “We think the fragmentari¬ 
ness of the geological record has been over¬ 
stated/’ He says that there are hundreds of 
feet in succession of Tertiary fresh-water 
deposits crowded with fossils of many species 
and the connecting links are absent. He speaks 
of the absence of “connecting links” as “the 
greatest of all objections” to evolution. He 
also says: “The change is apparently by sub¬ 
stitution of one species for another, and not by 
transmutation of one species into another. So 
also in successive geological faunas, the change 
seems rather by substitution than by trans¬ 
mutation. ’ ’ 

According to Darwin and Romanes and 
others, the missing links far outnumber the 
known species, and these missing forms are 
simply assumed to have existed because the 
theory of evolution demands it. There is no 

escape from making this assumption. 

58 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Huxley says: “There is not a single class 
of vertebrated animals which, when it first 
appears, is represented by analogues of the 
lowest known members of the same class. 
Therefore, if there is any truth in the doctrine 
of evolution, every class must be vastly older 
than the first record of its appearance upon the 
surface of the globe.’’ 

In other words, there is no evidence from 
fossils that any one of the highly developed, 
oldest-known forms of vertebrates was evolved 
from lower forms. 

As stated elsewhere, if the so-called “tree 
of life” be considered beginning with the first 
organic cell as a seed and, from this, growing 
up and branching so as to include all animals 
and plants that would be necessary according to 
the theory of evolution, then the whole lower 
half would have to be erased for lack of fossils 
that show that it ever existed; and nearly all of 
the upper half would have to be erased, thus 
leaving a few separated spots which show no 
organic connection between each other. A tree 
is an apt figure if evolution took place, but, 
as a matter of fact, it exists only in the 
imagination of the evolutionist. 

9. Evolution of species has not been proved. 
Darwin’s son, in writing his father’s biogra¬ 
phy, says: “We can not prove that a single 

59 



Atheism in Our Universities 


species has changed.” And yet evolutionists 
claim that all species have changed. 

Huxley wrote: “After much consideration, 
and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Dar¬ 
win’s views, it is our clear conviction that, as 
the evidence now stands, it is not absolutely 
proven that a group of animals, having all the 
characters exhibited by species in nature, has 
ever been originated by selection, whether 
artificial or natural. Groups having the morpho¬ 
logical character of species, distinct and perma¬ 
nent races in fact, have been so produced over 
and over again; but there is no positive evi¬ 
dence, at present, that any group of animals 
has, by variation and selective breeding, given 
rise to another group which was even in the 
least degree infertile with the first.” In other 
words, cross-sterility between the many varie¬ 
ties of pigeons, which Mr. Darwin studied, was 
not produced. All of these varieties, however 
different from each other in appearance, were 
cross-fertile with each other, and their off¬ 
spring were fertile. It is admitted that if all 
these varieties had been turned together, they 
would have disappeared as varieties and a 
common form would have resulted. 

Nature has no method to produce cross¬ 
sterility between varieties. But cross-sterility 
between groups of animals, known as species, 

is the rule. According to the theory of evolu- 

60 



Atheism in Our Universities 


tion, these species, which are now cross-sterile, 
were evolved from varieties which were cross- 
fertile. There was no other source from which 
to get them. The fact is that cross-sterility be¬ 
tween varieties has not been produced nor is it 
known to have taken place in nature. Occa¬ 
sionally, closely related species cross, but their 
product is not fertile, as in the case of the 
horse and the ass. 

10. Evolution has no means in a state of 
nature to prevent variations in individuals from 
being lost by merging in the common stock. If 
a variation occurs, it is soon lost by mingling, 
and the species is thus kept at a common level. 
Variations take place in all directions, and, by 
mingling these, the species is kept constant. 

11. Mr. Darwin says: “In what manner the 
mental powers were first developed in the lowest 
organisms we have no conception.” He admits 
that the inquiry is hopeless. 

Herbert Spencer says: ‘ ‘ That a unit of feel¬ 
ing has nothing in common with a unit of mo¬ 
tion, becomes more than ever manifest when we 
bring the two into juxtaposition.” Evolution 
based on “matter, motion and force” knows 
nothing as to the origin of feeling. Sensation, 
sometimes very dull, is found in all animals. 
Evolutionists know not how it came. They sim¬ 
ply assume that it was evolved from matter 

and force. This assumption is to be accepted as 

61 



Atheism in Our Universities 


a fact in their assumed scientific process. Logic 
suffers all violence at their hands. 

12. Evolution can offer nothing as to the ori¬ 
gin of the many complex instincts. True, Mr. 
Darwin has attempted to explain the origin of 
the highly developed instincts in the neuters of 
certain colonies of ants and in the neuters of 
the honey-bee which leave no offspring. How 
the many instincts in the neuter honey-bees, 
which leave no offspring, could have been 
evolved is, I think, beyond all reasonable ex¬ 
planation. Mr. Darwin says, in concluding his 
chapter on instincts: “I do not pretend that 
the facts given in this chapter strengthen in 
any great degree my theory; but none of the 
cases of difficulty, to the best of my judgment, 
annihilates it.” 

In referring to the difficulty of the instincts 
of two kinds of sterile ants in the same colony, 
he says: “This is by far the most serious special 
difficulty which my theory has encountered.” 

I have devoted a chapter to “Instincts” in 
my book “Organic Evolution Considered.” 

13. Matter and force, the only data of the 
philosophy of evolution, totally fail to account 
for the mind of man. This philosophy is a 
question of origins, from beginning to end. 
When Mr. Darwin says, “In what manner the 
mental powers were first developed in the low¬ 
est organisms, is as hopeless an inquiry as how 

62 



Atheism in Our Universities 


life first originated,” he simply evades two of 
the most important questions that are necessary 
parts of his theory when projected backward 
to a beginning. Mr. Darwin at no place in 
his process of creation acknowledges an intelli¬ 
gent God, but relies strictly upon natural proc¬ 
esses which are based upon matter and force. 

Prof. H. W. Conn says of natural selection: 
“But, after all, the greatest strength of the 
law of natural selection has been in the fact 
that it has furnished a natural law as a substi¬ 
tute for supernatural intelligence.” He under¬ 
stands that Darwin excludes intelligence from 
the whole process, and this leaves only matter 
and fluid force as factors. He acknowledges 
that he has no beginning for even the simplest 
mental process in the lowest animals and much 
less, if possible, for the faculties of the human 
mind. His process is atheistic. 

In saying this I do not mean that organic 
evolution might not in part be theistic, but Mr. 
Darwin does not make it so. 

He claims that man’s powers of mind differ 
in degree, but not in kind, from those of the 
lower animals. He holds that man, body and 
mind, has been evolved from an anthropomor¬ 
phous ape. I can point out only a few of the 
cases where man’s mental powers are not 
possessed by animals. Conscience belongs to 
man alone. No animal has it. We do not 

63 



Atheism in Our Universities 


attribute moral quality to a brute. No animal 
is known to suffer in conscience for any mis¬ 
deed. Freedom of the will to act from mo¬ 
tives that conscience approves, belongs to man 
alone. Without this freedom, there could be 
no conscience; that imperious word “ought’’ 
could make no demands. 

Self-consciousness is possessed by man alone. 
He can think about his own mental conditions, 
compare his thoughts as if they were external 
objects, bring together the past, the present 
and, in imagination, the future, and reason 
about them as realities. He can realize that 
he is the same person, though changed, that 
he was in his youth. He can examine his own 
mental being and pass judgment upon it as 
if it were another person. No animal has this 
power. 

In no important sense do animals have the 
power to reason, compared with man’s power 
to carry on an extensive process of reasoning 
in many fields of thought. The sounds made 
by animals, by means of which they communi¬ 
cate, are not to be dignified as language by 
comparing them with the speech of man. 
Human languages, with their many thousand 
words, embody the thoughts of the human 
mind. Language embodies thought. Animals 
have no thoughts to embody. Their so-called 

language is but the instinctive expression of 

64 



Atheism in Our Universities 


their feelings. No animal can entertain an 
abstract idea such as is embodied in any one of 
a multitude of human words. This is beyond 
their power. Think of the mind of a dog, 
horse or ape in connection with chemistry, 
physics, Greek, Latin, medicine, surgery, best 
method of farming, or any great subject, and 
you only smile at the thought. Universal love, 
the “noblest power of man,” is acknowledged 
to be beyond their ability to entertain. They 
do not contemplate sending relief to their kin¬ 
dred in China or Armenia. 

Man has flooded the world with tools and 
inventions of a million kinds for all conceivable 
purposes. He has modified and directed the 
forces of nature to utilize his inventions. It 
is said that an ape will sometimes use stones to 
crack nuts or roll them downhill against his 
enemies. That is all. 

The idea of one spiritual God—omnipotent, 
omniscient, omnipresent—a God of universal 
love and holiness who condemns sin in all its 
forms, but who can forgive the penitent sin¬ 
ner, is the most comprehensive that can enter 
the human mind. The idea of the one spiritual 
God, as set forth in the first chapters of Gen¬ 
esis, could not have been born of the human 
mind, but it came as a revelation, as a light¬ 
ning flash from heaven to man. This idea came 

not by reason, by philosophy nor by science. 

5 65 



Atheism in Our Universities 


“In the beginning God created the heaven and 
the earth’’ is a conclusion, the greatest that 
was ever drawn, and without human premises. 
Modern materialistic philosophy, in the form 
of universal evolution, is no substitute for this 
first sentence of the Bible. 

All of the nations except Israel were poly¬ 
theists. The Greeks, with all their culture in 
art, literature and philosophy, did not build 
their civilization upon monotheism, but upon 
polytheism. Their civilization perished for 
lack of a moral basis. 

The Israelites, a small nation surrounded 
by polytheists on every hand, with the idea of 
the one God firmly rooted in their mind by 
their inspired teachers, kept on their way, as 
the Gulf Stream in the ocean, enduring perse¬ 
cutions, wars and captivities in the name of 
Jehovah, and so they have endured unto this 
day. The idea of the one God runs as a golden 
cord through the sixty-six books of the Bible 
and binds them together as one consistent 
whole, although these books were written 
through a period of hundreds of years and in 
widely separated regions. The idea of the 
existence of the one spiritual God originated in 
the human mind, not through matter and the 
blind forces of nature, but necessarily as a 
direct revelation from God, as set forth in the 
Bible. 


66 



Atheism in Our Universities 


No animal has a religious nature. It would 
seem superfluous to make this statement. Mr. 
Darwin says: “The feeling of religious devo¬ 
tion is a highly complex one, consisting of 
love, complete submission to an exalted and 
mysterious superior, a strong sense of depen¬ 
dence, fear, reverence, gratitude, hope for the 
future, and, perhaps, other elements. No being 
could experience so complex an emotion until 
advanced in his intellectual and moral facul¬ 
ties to at least a moderately high level.’* This 
confirms my statement. Prayer, praise, rever¬ 
ence, love, gratitude, a sense of dependence, 
hope, belief in a future life, consciousness of 
sin and forgiveness—all related to the existence 
of a supreme spiritual God—are beyond the 
powers of any animal to realize. We at once 
realize that we can not substitute any animal 
for man as a religious being. Even the lowest 
savages accept Christianity. Still, Mr. Darwin 
does, and must, claim that man as a religious 
being has been evolved from some animal. 

14. The mind of man with a free will is not 
subject to the Darwinian theory of evolution 
as applied to organisms. Continuous genetic 
descent must exist among animals if the theory 
of evolution is true. Unbroken physical con¬ 
tinuity must have existed between any living 
species and the first living thing from which 

the process of evolution started. Continuity 

67 




Atheism in Our Universities 


must exist, otherwise the process ends where 
continuity is broken. 

There can be no continuity between the 
mental actions of minds that have free will. 
Thoughts are not inherited. If they were all 
inherited, the individual could not advance 
beyond his parents. Neither does the in¬ 
dividual obtain all his ideas from his contem¬ 
poraries, for the world is full of improvements 
and inventions that represent original thought. 
Men are under obligations to their fellow-men 
for much thought, but their individual efforts 
often lead them far beyond what they receive 
from their fellows. 

The history of the world is a history of 
human thought in all fields of effort. This, 
for lack of continuity, can not be regarded as 
evolution. There has been continual change, 
sometimes progress, but these alone do not con¬ 
stitute evolution. Genetic continuity can 
easily be traced in case of real evolution of 
organic forms, but no such continuity can exist 
in the case of free mental action. Evolution 
and freedom of the will are incompatible. 

15. Evolution founded on matter and force 
alone, and that theistic evolution which confines 
God to naturalism, eliminates the Bible as the 
book of authority in religion by denying every¬ 
thing that is supernatural. Miracles, revela¬ 
tions and objective answers to prayer could 

68 



Atheism in Our Universities 


not have taken place by the so-called scientific 
method. 

It was not by the process of evolution that 
God called Abraham, that He called to Moses 
out of the burning bush, that He gave to Moses 
the Ten Commandments on the mount, that He 
sent down fire on Elijah’s altar in answer to 
prayer, or that He healed Naaman when he 
had dipped himself seven times in the river 
Jordan. It was not by the scientific process of 
evolution that the Holy Spirit overshadowed 
the Virgin Mary, so that she conceived and 
bore a son. It was not by evolution that Jesus 
turned water into wine, gave sight to the blind, 
cleansed lepers, raised the young man alive 
from the bier, and called forth Lazarus from 
the tomb. It was not by evolution that the 
Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of 
a dove at Christ’s baptism, and that a voice 
from heaven announced, “This is my beloved 
Son.” It was not evolution when, on the 
mount of transfiguration, a voice was heard 
saying, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye 
him.” The body of Christ was not raised 
from the dead by the “scientific” process of 
evolution. 

Miracles not being possible as a part of the 
universal process of evolution, there was noth¬ 
ing miraculous in the birth of Christ, and, 

consequently, He was only a man, and had not 

69 



Atheism in Our Universities 


all authority in heaven and on earth; there 
being no miracles, Christ’s body did not rise 
from the dead, and He, not having arisen from 
the dead, did not associate with His disciples 
forty days, nor did He command His apostles 
to go into all the world and preach the gospel 
to every creature. On the day of Pentecost, the 
apostles did not speak with tongues as the 
Spirit gave them utterance, nor did Christ 
speak to Paul when he was converted, nor did 
any of the apostles perform the miracles that 
are recorded of them. Christ, according to this 
theory, was only a man who came by evolution. 
The confession of Him as the Son of God can 
not mean that He is Deity. The shedding of 
His blood, baptism and the Lord’s Supper have 
no authority except that of a man. Forgive¬ 
ness of sins could not take place according to 
this theory, for nature’s laws are all merciless. 
Man “fell up” and not down. He does not 
sin, but only makes mistakes and needs no 
forgiveness. Man, being under the dominion 
of law, has no free will and so ought not to 
have a conscience. 

But the fact that he has a conscience is un¬ 
mistakable evidence that his will is free. Our 
own self-consciousness confirms this beyond all 
arguments to the contrary. No logic can defeat 
the validity of the conclusions of our own 
consciousness. 


70 



Atheism in Our Universities 


The supernatural, that which nature can 
not perform according to any known laws, is 
a dominant idea throughout the Bible. The 
natural and the supernatural are not identical. 
Science has a natural basis only; the religion 
of the Bible contains a large supernatural ele¬ 
ment. There can he no conflict between true 
science and true religion , for God is the author 
of both. The difficulty arises when naturalism 
attempts to usurp the whole field, by claiming 
that it is the only method by which God 
works. 


71 



VI. 


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE 

By Chancellor David Starr Jordan and Dr. 
Ray Leman Wilbur, of Leland Stanford 
University. 

T HE following is a copy of the letter which 
was sent to Chancellor Jordan, accompany¬ 
ing the questionnaire. The letter is substantial¬ 
ly the same as those sent out to the other 
university presidents -whose answers are con¬ 
tained in this volume, and will not be repeated 
in considering each answer: 

Lexington, Ky., June 12, 1920. 
Chancellor David Starr Jordan, 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif. 

Dear Sir :—I have been making inquiry for the pur¬ 
pose of obtaining reliable information as to the status 
of the subject of Darwinism or any doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion in our educational system. A number of the super¬ 
intendents of public instruction and presidents of normal 
schools have written to me on the subject. From their 
answers, I infer that Darwinism, or some other theory 
of evolution, is commonly accepted and taught in prac¬ 
tically all of our high schools, normal schools, colleges 
and universities. There does not, however, seem to be 

72 


Atheism in Our Universities 


agreement as to the meaning of the word “evolution.” 
For the purpose of obtaining a correct definition 
especially, I write to you and a number of others. 

Alfred Fairhurst. 

Chancellor Jordan strikes out the word 
“other” before “theory,” inserts the word 
“organic” between “of” and “evolution,” 
and inserts the words “including it” after the 
word “evolution.” He then says: “Darwin¬ 
ism is evolution by natural selection, a constant 
factor among living beings, but not the sole 
one.’ ’ Again he says: “ I do not like to use the 
word ‘evolution.’ Organic evolution, planetary 
evolution, topographic evolution, have different 
meanings. Whenever time elapses, change 
appears, and this may always be called evolu¬ 
tion.” 

Questionnaire with Jordan’s answers: 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is the science 
of creation” correct? 

Answer—“A good epigram.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution “is (1) 
continuous, progressive change; (2) according to fixed 
laws, (3) and by means of resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—Chancellor Jordan inserts between the words 
“forces” and “correct” the words “and their re¬ 
actions to external conditions.” He says: “A law is 
merely the ascertained succession of events.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, beginning in 
the inorganic world and flowing as a continuous stream 
through the ages, including all material and psycho¬ 
logical changes that have taken place or that will take 

73 



Atheism in Our Universities 


place in the future 1 ? In other words, is it not the one 
universal process? the one universal science? 

Answer—“It may be, as philosophically considered. 
But as causes, effects and modes of operation in organic 
beings are wholly unlike those of world production, 
mountain-forming and the like, there is much chance of 
self-deception in uniting the two types.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science, or only 
a theory? 

Answer—“Assuredly a matter of scientific knowl¬ 
edge, if the word is not too much diluted.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution consistent 
with the miracles commonly attributed to Christ in the 
New Testament? 

Answer—“The doctrine of evolution is not con¬ 
cerned ; the conflict is with common experience. 1 Science 
and religion must each run its course; I am not responsi¬ 
ble if the meeting-point be far away.’— Darwin .” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and what wall 
be, the effect of the teaching of evolution in our public 
schools on the commonly accepted teachings of the 
New Testament? In what way must this teaching be 
modified? 

Answer —‘ 1 The teaching of evolution is only com¬ 
mon sense and common experience expanded. I take it 
that the essence of the teaching of Jesus does not lie in 
the recorded miracles.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolution ac¬ 
cepted and taught in the university of which you are 
chancellor? 

Answer—“To the same extent as the doctrine of 
gravitation. The living questions relate to the details, 
on many of which, for lack of complete evidence, there 
is much difference of opinion. In both cases any other 
theory consistent with the facts would be given equal 

74 



Atheism in Our Universities 


credence. All theory is provisional. But one could no 

more return to the idea of separate creation of species 

than to the old idea of planets steered through space in 

the hands of angels . 11 ~ x 

& David Starr Jordan. 

(In behalf also of Dr. Ray Leman Wilbur.) 

I think that Chancellor Jordan is correct 
when he says: “I do not like to use the word 
1 evolution.’ Organic evolution, planetary evo¬ 
lution, topographic evolution, have different 
meanings. Whenever time elapses, change 
appears, and this may always be called evolu¬ 
tion. ’ ’ 

There is much confusion in the minds of 
those who accept the theory as to what the 
word “evolution” means. I think that the 
word is used largely to indicate the changes 
that have taken place in time without reference 
to causes or methods. It is easy to understand 
how this definition can be accepted, and with¬ 
out much thought. Most people seem to think 
that when they accept the above idea they are 
“up to date,” and especially that they have 
the “dynamic,” which is opposed to the 
“static,” theory of creation. As a matter of 
fact, every one must accept the idea that, as 
time has elapsed, changes have continually 
taken place in both the dead and the living 
worlds. The fact of change is not the whole of 
evolution. The fundamental question is one of 

75 



Atheism in Our Universities 


cause and method. Can science and scientific 
methods explain the present order of things? 

In “Evolution and Animal Life,” by Jor¬ 
dan and Kellogg (p. 1), it is stated: 

“This volume treats of the elements of the science 
of organic evolution. This science belongs to the con¬ 
sideration of the forces which govern the changes in 
organisms. It includes the influences which control 
development in the individual and in the species which 
is the succession of individuals, together with the law's 
or observed sequences of events which development ex¬ 
hibits. From another point of view, this is the science 
of life—adaptation.” 

In the above quotation, Chancellor Jordan 
claims that organic evolution is a science. He 
also claims that the principal thing involved 
in the study of this science is “the considera¬ 
tion of the forces which govern the changes in 
organisms.” In reading the volume, however, 
I have failed to see what forces are involved in 
organic evolution. 

The word “bionomics,” first suggested by 
Prof. Patrick Geddes, is preferred by the 
authors to “organic evolution.” 

To quote further: 

“To use the word ‘evolution’ in regard to this proc¬ 
ess, is to use a philosophic term in connection with a 
group of scientific facts. For the word ‘evolution’ 
means ‘unrolling.’ It carries the thought that some¬ 
thing which was previously hidden is now brought to 
light. This naturally leads to the philosophic sugges- 

76 



Atheism in Our Universities 


tion that -whatever is evolved must be previously in¬ 
volved. This may be true as a matter of words, but not 
necessarily so as a matter of fact. 

“The word ‘evolution,’ then, belongs to philosophy, 
rather than to science. In the philosophy of nature the 
idea that present conditions are brought about through 
unrolling or unveiling has had a long existence. The 
word ‘evolution’ has been frequently applied to the 
process of growth and maturity of the individual plant, 
and again to the process of the derivation of species 
from ancestral organisms, and again to the progressive 
changes in the forms of inorganic bodies, as planets or 
mountains. Each one of these meanings is essentially 
distinct from the others, and each is distinct from the 
theory of evolution which existed in the dawn of bio¬ 
logical science. 

“Biological evolution and cosmic evolution are not 
the same (p. 6). They are not true identities, because not 
arising from the same causes. It is not clear that 
science has been really advanced through the conception 
of the essential unity of organic evolution and cosmic 
evolution. . . . The laws which govern living matter are 
in a large extent peculiar to the process of living.” 

From the above it is seen that the word 
* ‘ evolution ’ * is a philosophic term. It is in¬ 
correctly used in all of its applications. Few 
words in the English language have been so 
widely and joyfully received as the word 
“evolution.’’ It seems to many to be the uni¬ 
versal panacea that explains all events. It 
can be applied at any time and in any place 
in the universe, yielding perfect results. Some 
of the answers which I have received to my 

77 



Atheism in Our Universities 


questions indicate almost a hilarious condition 
of mind from the use of the word “ evolution. ’’ 
It is a conjure word to be hung as an amulet 
from the neck, ready for immediate use in all 
emergencies. Men use it without having any 
true conception as to what it means. They 
seem to think that it has an invariable mean¬ 
ing, w r hen, in fact, it has a variety of meanings 
in the various fields to which it is applied. 
The word always implies the question of 
causes that are unseen, and, for the most part, 
beyond the power of science to trace, and 
yet it is generally defined by visible physical 
results. 

In my book entitled “Theistic Evolution ,’’ 
I have called attention to some of the various 
senses in which the word is used. 

It is evident, I think, that when we properly 
discriminate between the various parts of 
cosmic, or universal, evolution, we can readily 
see that there is no genetic connection between 
them—that the one has not grown out of the 
other, according to any known or ascertainable 
laws. 

Chancellor Jordan, in the book cited (p. 
11), speaking of bionomics, or organic evolu¬ 
tion, says: 

“This theory is now the central axis of all bio¬ 
logical investigation in all its branches from ethics to 
histology, from anthropology to bacteriology. ’ ’ 

78 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Also (p. 49) he says: 

* * The days are now by when the truth or falsity of 
the law of organic descent is a debatable thesis. ” 

He has spoken of organic evolution as a 
science, but in the above he speaks of it as a 
theory that reigns supreme in considering the 
organic world, and in the last quotation he in¬ 
dicates his belief that the evidence in favor of 
this theory is conclusive. 

Again he says: 

“ Organic evolution, or bionomics, is one of the 
most comprehensive of all the sciences, including in its 
subject-matter not only natural history, not only proc¬ 
esses like cell division and nutrition, not only the laws 
of heredity, variation, segregation, natural selection 
and mutual help, but all matters of human history and 
the most complicated relations of civics, economics and 
ethics. , y 

The above definition of “organic evolution’’ 
comprehends the entire organic world, both 
physical and psychological, all human history. 
It would account for the origin of all species, 
for man’s body and his mind as well. As a 
logical necessity, the theory must be projected 
backward from living things into the inorganic 
world, and, as pure science, which it claims to 
be, accept Spencer’s data—“matter, motion and 
force.” With these alone, it makes but limping, 

79 



Atheism in Our Universities 


halting progress along the upward road of a 
hypothetical evolution. 

In traveling this road it soon becomes evi¬ 
dent that one is chasing a theory that calls for 
facts that do not exist—a philosophy whose 
base hangs over a vacuum. 

Chancellor Jordan, in the book cited (p. 70), 
says: 

“Finally, we ought not to suppose that we have al¬ 
ready reached a satisfactory solution of the evolution 
problem, or are indeed near such a solution. ” 

“We must not conceal from ourselves the 
fact,” says Roux, “that the causal investiga¬ 
tion of organisms is one of the most difficult 
problems which the human intellect has at¬ 
tempted to solve.” 

Again, he says with regard to organic 
evolution: 

“After some years of controversy, mostly theoretical, 
the discussion has been tacitly dropped by biologists 
generally. It is recognized that the sole critical test is 
that of experiment, etc. ” (p. 197). 

The discussion that has been dropped is as 
to method, but the “consensus of the opinion” 
of biologists is that organic evolution is a fact. 
The proof of this fact must depend on experi¬ 
ment. 

Evolution is to have the “critical test” of 
experiment. In the meantime, however, it is 

80 



Atheism in Our Universities 


to be accepted as a fact . It would seem that 
judgment might have been suspended till the 
“critical test” had been satisfactorily made. 
The attitude of suspended judgment in doubt¬ 
ful cases would be most wholesome, but, if it 
prevailed in this case, the acceptance of the 
theory would be, if ever, in the distant future. 

The theory of evolution, as held by many, 
is an effort by naturalism to preside at the 
funeral of supernaturalism, which it has 
murdered. 

Chancellor Jordan’s Answer to 
Question Five. 

Question—Is the scientific doctrine of evolution con¬ 
sistent with the miracles commonly attributed to Christ 
in the New Testament? 

Answer —* 1 The doctrine of evolution is not con¬ 
cerned. The conflict is with common experience. 1 Science 
and religion must each run its course; I am not responsi¬ 
ble if the meeting-point be far away.’— Danvin.** 

It is easy to understand that known facts 
of science are “not concerned” with miracles, 
for the one involves only the natural, while 
the other involves the supernatural. It is the 
business of science to make certain her facts, 
and religion, which appeals to the supernatural, 
must harmonize with known facts of science. 
But when the writer says, “This conflict is 

with common experience,” he seems to “beg 
6 81 



Atheism in Our Universities 


the question.” This old way of disposing of 
miracles by saying that they are opposed to 
human experience has not been accepted as a 
satisfactory solution. 

Mr. Darwin’s statement that “ science and 
religion must each run its course; I am not 
responsible if the meeting-point be far away,” 
seems to indicate that he was not much con¬ 
cerned as to the bearing of his theory on the 
Christian religion. Yet the vital and all-im¬ 
portant question which evolution raises is: 
Can the supernatural, in the Christian sense, 
survive in its presence? 

Chancellor Jordan says: 4 ‘All processes in 
the universe are alike natural. . . . All are 
alike supernatural, for they all rest on the 
huge unseen solidity of the universe, the im¬ 
perishability of matter, the conservation of 
energy and the immanence of law” (“Evolu¬ 
tion and Animal Life,” Jordan and Kellogg— 
p. 9). The author makes no distinction between 
the natural and the supernatural. This places 
the Bible and the Christian religion on a pure¬ 
ly naturalistic basis—they are made simply 
human inventions. 

Effect on Teachings of New Testament. 

Question 6 —What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of evolution in 
our public schools on the commonly accepted teachings 

82 



Atheism in Our Universities 


of the New Testament? In what way must this teach¬ 
ing be modified? 

Answer—‘ ‘ The teaching of evolution is only common 
sense and common experience expanded. I take it that 
the essence of the teaching of Jesus does not lie in the 
recorded miracles.” 

The above question is most vital, because 
it involves the life of the Christian religion. 
We have been careful to exclude the Bible 
from our public schools, and yet, in our igno¬ 
rance, we permit a theory to be taught that 
destroys the Bible as a book of authority by 
denying miracles, revelations and what the 
Christian regards as supernatural. I have sent 
the above list of questions to the heads of the 
leading universities in the United States, in¬ 
cluding presidents of State universities, and 
have received answers from many of them. 
Question 4 is: “Is evolution to be regarded as 
a science, or only a theory ?” The great ma¬ 
jority of answers by the presidents or their 
representatives are that it is a “ theory/’ A 
theory is not a science. The theory of evolu¬ 
tion is the greatest, the most comprehensive, 
that the mind of man has grappled with. It 
is an all-comprehensive theory of naturalism, 
that eliminates the God of the Bible, or forces 
Him into the background. This theory can 
have no place for the Lord’s Prayer, for the 

cross or the resurrection. Its God, if it 

83 



Atheism in Our Universities 


acknowledges a God, is not “Our Father who 
art in heaven/’ In no respect can He be a 
Father—a God of love and mercy. He does 
not see the sparrow fall, nor the individual, 
but, at most, He presides, through His laws, 
over the destiny of the race. 

It is indeed amazing that the theory of 
evolution, over which many master minds have 
exhausted their powers without coming to an 
agreement, should be taught with approval in 
many of our public schools and in most higher 
institutions of learning. 

The vast scope of the theory is not compre¬ 
hended by most teachers. The average evolu¬ 
tionist is a dogmatist of the strictest type. To 
him there is but one side to the theory. What 
he knows on the subject has been pumped into 
him mechanically. The books that he has read 
are all on one side. These books are conclusive. 
To him there is no other side. He says: “I 
agree with consensus of the opinion of men of 
science.’ ’ 

I am told that in the Ohio State University 
library there are from two to three hun¬ 
dred volumes advocating evolution, and only 
two or three volumes against it. This repre¬ 
sents the kind of honesty that “stuffs the 
ballot-box.” Why can not men of science be 
honest? Wliy may not both sides be pre¬ 
sented by the teacher? Wliy place the books 

84 



Atheism in Our Universities 


of all leading evolutionists in the library and 
leave out all which oppose evolution ? This 
university library needs renovating on the sub- 
ject of evolution. I have written to the libra¬ 
rians of ten of the leading universities asking 
how many books in their libraries favor and 
how many oppose the theory of evolution, but 
have received no information, except from two, 
who state that they are well supplied with 
books on the subject. I have no positive in¬ 
formation as to the kind of books on this 
subject in the libraries of universities, but I 
suspect that the condition of Ohio State 
University represents the condition of many 
of them. 

Some time ago I was present at a class of 
about seventy-five young men and young 
women, when a professor of zoology lectured 
on the subject of evolution. In fine style he 
trotted out the little four-toed Eohippus and 
the other hippuses of succeeding periods to 
prove that the modern horse had been evolved. 
I exclaimed in mind: Give the Eohippus a rest! 
The loss of a toe, if granted, does not show 
how he got that toe by evolution. If you want 
to tackle the real problem, show how the horse 
got his toes, beginning with animals that had 
no toes, nor legs, etc.—back, back to the pri¬ 
mordial cell. The professor regarded the loss 

of toes as good evidence of evolution. 

85 



Atheism in Our Universities 


A young woman in the class asked whether 
the theory of evolution was consistent with the 
Christian’s idea of God or not. To this the 
professor replied, in substance: “It makes no 
difference to me whether there is a God or 
not.” The public who employ teachers have a 
right to know what they teach. Does it accord 
with the genius of our Government or with our 
Christian civilization for a professor to pro¬ 
claim his atheism to a class of young men 
and women in a State university? Is this to 
be accepted as a part of our educational sys¬ 
tem ? Are citizens voluntarily giving their 
money to support such teaching? 

Who is responsible for the appointment and 
retention of this class of professors on our 
Faculties? As a rule, the president of an in¬ 
stitution selects the teachers. I know not who 
does this at Ohio State University. 

Is it true in this country, as it has been 
especially in Germany, that, on the ground of 
“academic freedom,” a man may proclaim 
his atheism or any other doctrine, however 
damnable to morals and to the Christian re¬ 
ligion, and be secure from public criticism? 
Can any moral or religious qualifications be 
demanded of one before he is permitted to 
teach in our public institutions? 

No President of the United States or pub¬ 
lic official in a high place has, so far as I know, 

86 



Atheism in Our Universities 


dared to proclaim that he is an atheist. I take 
it that onr national motto (“In God we trust”) 
is not entirely void of meaning to the majority 
of our people. 

Think of the spectacle, if you can, of a 
teacher, a product of a modern university, who 
has been dogmatically taught the theory of 
evolution as a science, who has sat at the feet 
of professors who have presented a one-sided 
view of the theory, but who have failed to 
present any objections to it. Think of this 
dogmatic fledgeling, with his brand-new Ph.D., 
standing before a class of boys and girls pour¬ 
ing his dogmatic teaching on evolution into 
their minds, which are like empty buckets 
ready to receive whatever is poured into them 
by a teacher. This theory, this naturalistic 
philosophy of the universe, is being insin¬ 
uated into the minds of our young people 
by dogmatic teachers, who know not what 
they do. 

One who had been a student in Ohio State 
University said to me: “Three-fourths of the 
professors in the university are atheists, and 
the other fourth are agnostics and Christians.” 
This I took to be an exaggeration, but it in¬ 
dicated a certain condition. Another who had 
been a student there said that a considerable 
number of the professors in that institution 

were agnostics and atheists. If such impres- 

87 



Atheism in Our Universities 


sions were made on these two students of good 
ability, what must have been the impression 
left upon the thousands of students in atten¬ 
dance ¥ 

I have noticed recently in print that this 
institution is proposing to give special atten¬ 
tion to the Y. M. C. A. A good house-cleaning 
would be a great help to the Y. M. C. A. 
workers. 

It will become more and more evident as I 
proceed in considering the answers to my ques¬ 
tions by various men that the fundamental 
difficulty in our educational system has its 
center in our greatest educational institutions. 
Not that the heads of our universities are in¬ 
tentionally adverse to that which is true and 
good, but that a good deal of the teaching is 
committed to those who do not wield the proper 
influence to mold sterling character. The 
modern rage is science and the “ scientific 
method , 99 and especially evolution (falsely so 
called in most cases) running through the 
whole curriculum. In chemistry and physics 
there are many known facts and some theories, 
and we may speak of these as branches of 
physical science. In biology are some facts and 
endless theories, all of which are claimed by 
many to be science. The theory of organic 
evolution has become the backbone of all bio¬ 
logical teaching, and the false impression is 

88 



Atheism in Our Universities 


made by those who teach it that the theory is 
established science. It should be remembered 
that organic evolution is only a necessary part 
of cosmic evolution, and that the latter tries to 
account for conditions in all times and all 
places in the universe. 

Mr. Darwin began organic evolution with a 
few forms half-way up in the scale of organiza¬ 
tion, such as are found in the primordial 
period. But he had no logical right to begin 
there unless he projected his theory backward 
in time, to account for the evolution of the 
forms with which he began. It is admitted by 
evolutionists that the first living thing must 
have originated by evolution, if the theory is 
true. 

The following is an accepted fact, stated by 
Chancellor Jordan and other biologists: “All 
life comes from life.” But the theory of 
evolution, which, as science, accepts only mat¬ 
ter and force as the immediate data of all 
things, must include spontaneous generation 
as a part of her process. They were the only 
data in the world before life appeared, and 
men are still looking to “resident forces” to 
account for the origin of life. But they look 
in vain. 

Jordan and Kellogg say: “Finally, we may 
refer briefly to the ‘grand problem 5 of the ori¬ 
gin of life itself. Any treatment of this ques- 

89 



Atheism in Our Universities 


tion is bound to be wholly theoretical. We do 
not know a single positive thing about it.” 

E. D. Cope says: “Failure of the attempts 
to demonstrate spontaneous generation, if con¬ 
tinued, is fatal to this theory.” 

Professor Tyndall’s nearly a thousand ex¬ 
periments with organic infusion led him to 
conclude that life comes only from life. 

Darwin said: “The inquiry as to how life 
first appeared is hopeless.” 

Professor Conn says: “With all our re¬ 
search, the essence and origin of life has thus 
far eluded our grasp.” 

Again, he says that the simplest living 
thing is a cell, and that a cell is not simply a 
chemical compound, protoplasm, but an ex¬ 
tremely complex organism of “many parts act¬ 
ing in adjustment to each other. . . . The more 
it is studied, the more complex it appears. It 
acts rather as a machine. ... So far as we 
know, unorganized protoplasm does not exist. 
The properties of life seem to be manifested in 
nothing simpler than the organic cell.” 

The question of spontaneous generation is 
not simply chemical, but it involves the pro¬ 
duction also of a very complex organism in 
which life can manifest itself. 

The theory of universal evolution necessarily 
includes spontaneous generation, of which there 

is no evidence. A theory which must assume 

90 



Atheism in Our Universities 


an impossibility can not be “science.’* This 
assumption is the beginning-point of organic 
evolution. 

The question may be asked: “Why not say 
that God created the first living thing V 9 For 
God to have done this would have been a 
miracle, a supernatural event, and science deals 
only with natural forces, and can not include 
a miracle as a part of her process. As Haeckel 
rightly says: “To admit one miracle opens the 
way to other miracles.” 

This all-inclusive theory of scientific evolu¬ 
tion, as it is claimed, assumes that the natural 
forces at its command are the only forces in 
the universe, and it claims that there can be 
no manifestation of supernatural power other 
than by natural processes. The assumption that 
the so-called scientific method is universal can 
not be proved. Science can not grasp all the 
processes of the universe. The theoretical high¬ 
way is broken in pieces by many impassable 
gulfs. 

Chancellor Jordan, in answering my sixth 
question, says: “The teaching of evolution 
is only common sense and common experience 
expanded.” As to what is meant by “common 
sense” in teaching the subject of evolution in 
our public schools I have already expressed 
my opinion. As to whether the “common 

sense” of teachers in our secondary schools, for 

91 



Atheism in Our Universities 


example, will enable teachers honestly and fully 
to present the subject or not, and whether these 
schools are proper places or not, may well claim 
Chancellor Jordan’s earnest consideration. 

Is it not true that what the pupils would 
get would be a few facts on one side of the 
subject, presented in a dogmatic way, and 
practically nothing on the other side ? The 
result of this kind of teaching is inevitable— 
harmful, useless, unscientific. There is 
enough real science of practical importance 
to occupy all the time of pupils in secondary 
schools. 

The teaching of evolution ought, in my 
opinion, to be excluded (by law, if necessary) 
from all public schools below the universities, 
and in the colleges and universities it ought to 
be taught honestly and fully to the select few 
who have the ability to comprehend it in all 
its bearings. 

Chancellor Jordan says: “The teaching of 
evolution is only common sense and common 
experience expanded.” Organic evolution, if 
it has taken place, extends back over millions 
of years, while our “expanded experience,” 
at most, reaches back but a few years. When 
we see a living horse, we are absolutely certain 
that it had two living parents. And, by our 
various experiences with animals and plants, 

we conclude that life comes only from life. 

92 



Atheism in Our Universities 


This rule applied to the ancestors of living 
things would lead us into an endless past, and 
compel us to state that living things always 
existed in the world. But we know that life 
had a beginning here. The statement that 
living things always existed is squarely con¬ 
tradicted, if our experience could reach back to 
the first living thing. Our ‘ ‘ experience ex¬ 
panded” knows nothing of the origin of a 
single species of the probable millions that 
exist and have existed in past ages. Nor does 
this “experience” reveal to us any method by 
which nature could render cross-sterile closely 
related varieties so that they could become 
millions of species. An impassable barrier has 
been erected at this point which no plausible 
theory explains. Varieties under domestica¬ 
tion, preserved by man’s selection, would soon 
cease to be varieties in a state of nature where 
all would be free to mingle. Man propagates 
varieties by selecting and separating, but na¬ 
ture obliterates varieties by mingling. Under 
domestication there is no struggle for existence, 
and, consequently, the law of natural selection 
does not apply. In a word, I may say that our 
“experience expanded” does not extend far 
enough along the road of evolution to help it 
over the most difficult points. “Experience 
expanded” by imagination will serve the 
purpose. 


93 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Question Seven. 

Question 7 —To what extent is the doctrine of evolu* 
tion accepted and taught in the university of which you 
are chancellor? 

Answer—“To the same extent as the doctrine of 
gravitation. The living questions relate to the details, 
on many of which, for lack of complete evidence, there 
is much difference of opinion. In both cases any other 
theory consistent with the facts would be given equal 
credence. All theory is provisional. But one could no 
more return to the idea of the separate creation of 
species than to the old idea of planets steered through 
space in the hands of angels.” 

No one doubts the truth of the laws of 
gravitation. Every teacher accepts them as 
firmly established. And so every teacher is 
to accept and teach organic evolution as estab¬ 
lished beyond question. No further proof of 
it as a fact is needed. The case has been 
closed in its favor, the verdict has been 
delivered, and there is no possibility of a suc¬ 
cessful appeal. The professor is not called 
upon to prove the fact of evolution. He has 
only to build upon the sure foundation, and to 
go forward with no uncertain footsteps! 
Shades of Sir William Dawson, who spent 
much of his life in combating this theory, which 
is being widely heralded as an established fact! 
And what shall we say of Agassiz, America’s 
leading zoologist; of George Frederick Wright, 

a geologist of world-wide reputation, and of 

94 



Atheism in Our Universities 


a large number of others who maintained that 
evolution is only a theory unestablished? 

It is inevitable, I take it, that when “Evolu¬ 
tion and Animal Life,” by Jordan and Kellogg, 
is used as a text, and I presume it is in Stan¬ 
ford University, that the students accept the 
theory that it advocates. Above, it is said: 
“Any other theory consistent with the facts 
would be given credence/’ This is a fair 
statement, but, as a matter of fact, could it be 
expected that students in classes would be 
able to present any other theory? Is it not a 
fact that the student in a case of this kind is 
at the mercy of the teacher? A theory that 
rests on so sure a foundation as the laws of 
gravitation is certain to be more or less dog¬ 
matically taught. The evidence in favor of it 
is magnified, and that opposed is touched upon 
lightly or omitted. 

The theory of organic evolution, as is ad¬ 
mitted by evolutionists, necessarily includes the 
origin of the first living thing. Without life 
he has nothing with which to begin the living 
process. As to spontaneous generation, 
Chancellor Jordan says: “We do not know a 
single positive thing about it. . . . All life 
comes from life. . . . The biologist can not ad¬ 
mit spontaneous generation in the face of the 
scientific evidence he has. On the other hand, 

he has difficulty in understanding how life 

95 




Atheism in Our Universities 


could have originated in any other way 
than through some transformation from in¬ 
organic matter/’ He does not understand it 
in that way. Naturalism being his sole 
method, he must accept spontaneous genera¬ 
tion. 

“It is not clear that science has been really 
advanced through the conception of the essen¬ 
tial unity of organic and cosmic evolution.” 
Certainly the claims of organic evolution, 
which is posing under the name of “the scien¬ 
tific method,” would be much relieved if it 
did not have to begin in the mineral world. 
Mr. Darwin cut various Gordian knots when 
he began half-way up in the animal kingdom 
and assumed spontaneous generation and the 
evolution of sub-kingdoms, etc. There is no 
proof as to how a star-fish, a snail, a spider or 
a fish came into existence by the process of 
evolution. None as to the origin of sex, wings 
of various kinds, legs, eyes of numerous kinds, 
or of any other of the various organs of the 
body. Peeling, instincts, mind with its many 
powers—these are all assumed to have origi¬ 
nated by the “scientific process” of evolution. 
We are told that the fact that these things 
have been brought about in this way is as cer¬ 
tain as the laws of gravitation. This being 
true, how is the pressure of “science ” to be 
resisted ? 


90 




Atheism in Our Universities 


Evolution is a theory that assumes every¬ 
thing of importance. That this theory, which 
is broken into a thousand fragments by im¬ 
passable gulfs that cross its pathway, should 
be called “scientific” is beyond same thinking. 

In organic evolution there must be an un¬ 
broken line of generic continuity among organ¬ 
isms, so that any living form, if we knew its 
ancestors, could be traced back to the first 
living thing with which the process began. 

The genetic continuity that is necessary in 
the physical organisms of the organic world 
is equally necessary in the psychological world, 
but we have no evidence of its existence there. 

All human history in which the actions of 
many millions of human minds have had their 
part as, to a large extent, independent units, 
is not an illustration of evolution. There is 
a lack of continuity in the thinking of differ¬ 
ent minds. The cotton-gin was the invention 
of Whitney, the sewing-machine of Howe, the 
steamboat of Fulton, the telegraph of Morse, 
and the telephone of Bell. There was no con¬ 
tinuity of thought conveyed by other people to 
each of these inventors, but their inventions 
represent their own original, individual 
thoughts in each case. It is true that in each 
case the inventor used the results of the labor 
of other minds, but his invention involved 

original material not contributed by other 
7 97 



Atheism in Our Universities 


minds. And so the millions of inventions fail 
to show continuity in the mental world. The 
freedom of the human will to choose and to exe¬ 
cute forbids mental continuity. The human 
mind would be a mere machine if its actions 
were all dictated by others. Its supremacy 
rests upon the fact that it is free. 

Men talk about evolution in human history. 
History is made by the mind of man. To be 
sure, there has been progress, but this progress 
can not properly be called evolution, because of 
the lack of genetic continuity. The progress all 
along the line is due to new, original thoughts 
of individual minds—thoughts which have not 
been contributed by others, and, consequently, 
are beyond the scope of evolution. Human 
history is not a fit field for the word “ evolu¬ 
tion.” When thus used, it forsakes the mean¬ 
ing that it has in organic evolution. The word 
“history” alone will express the thought. 

I presume that the word “evolution” is 
used, in history and other fields, because it 
claims to involve natural causes only. A per¬ 
fect “philosophy of history” would involve at 
least a knowledge of the complete psychology 
of the principal characters involved. 

No prophet could have foretold the action 
of the principal minds that precipitated the re¬ 
cent World War. None could foresee the re¬ 
sults of the mental operations of the German 

98 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Emperor—self-centered, vain, overly ambitious, 
with greatly magnified views as to his place in 
the world’s affairs. With a mind half insane, 
thirsting for dominion, believing in the al- 
mightiness of the machine of death and con¬ 
quest that he had put in motion, he stood upon 
the portico of the Potsdam Palace and told 
the people that the war would be short, that 
his victorious hosts would return with flying 
banners when the leaves fell in the coming 
autumn. “Gott und Ich,” according to his 
views, were allies in supreme deviltry against 
the human race. But God wouldn’t stand for 
it. 

The causes of the conflict no one could see. 
The real causes were human minds whose ac¬ 
tions had, as much as possible, been kept con¬ 
cealed. The world had been grossly deceived. 
But the world gradually opened its eyes to the 
fact that a great nation had for a half-century 
given its thought and its substance to prepare 
for slaughter and world-wide conquest. The 
forces of death were made supreme. Some 
writers maintained, shortly before the war, 
that another great war could never occur. No 
process of evolution, properly speaking, can 
be seen by which the conflict was brought 
about. Many individual, independent minds 
were at work contributing to the results that 
followed. 


99 



Atheism in Our Universities 


That there are certain things that help to 
determine results is well understood. That 
*‘righteousness exalteth a nation” no one can 
doubt. That “the nations which forget God 
shall be turned into Sheol” is evident. 

The seer may rely with the certainty of the 
laws of gravitation on justice, mercy, truth and 
love as producing beneficent results in human 
society, and with equal certainty upon the fact 
that injustice, cruelty, lying and hatred will 
bear their fruits of destruction. 

“Do unto others as you would have them 
do unto you,” and “love your neighbor as 
yourself,” are as certain in their results, when 
applied, as are the laws of gravitation. They 
are causes in the moral, spiritual world which 
revolutionize human society. 

But it is not evolution, in any proper sense, 
by which principles of ethics produce their re¬ 
sults, for the evident reason that they are not 
working on machines, but upon free human be¬ 
ings who can choose their course of action in 
every case. 

Men have become so wedded to the word 
“evolution” that they drag it into every field, 
and make it do service. In most cases, I think, 
it means only the changes that take place due 
to lapse of time. 

Chancellor Jordan says: “But one could no 

more return to the idea of the separate crea- 

100 




Atheism in Our Universities 


tion of species than to the old idea of planets 
steered through space in the hands of 
angels.” In other words, we are absolutely cer¬ 
tain that each of the millions of species has 
been derived by evolution. This is said in the 
face of the fact that not a single species is 
known to have been evolved. Darwin’s son, 
writing the biography of his father, says: 
“We can not prove that a single species has 
changed. No example can be given. Only 
varieties that are cross-fertile with each other 
have been produced, but the theory of evolu¬ 
tion demands varieties that were cross-sterile 
with each other—a thing that is not known 
even under domestication.” The millions, as 
claimed, of species are cross-sterile, so that, if 
they cross at all, the offspring can not propa¬ 
gate their kind. There is no evidence that 
nature has any means of producing cross¬ 
sterility among varieties of the same species, 
and yet cross-sterility must have been pro¬ 
duced millions of times, if the doctrine of 
evolution be true. 

If it be granted, by way of argument, that 
fishes in caves lost their eyes by disuse, or birds 
lost the use of their wings for flight by disuse, 
or horses their toes till but one on each foot 
remains, this is no proof as to how the eyes 
of vertebrates, the wings of birds or the toes 

of horses originated dc novo, beginning with 

101 



Atheism in Our Universities 


nothing. The supreme question of evolution is 
that of origins all along the line from the 
imaginary primordial cell, derived by spon¬ 
taneous generation, to the body and mind of 
man. The theory is purely imaginary. It is, 
so far as I can see, the only complete naturalis¬ 
tic theory that can be offered. It rests upon 
the assumption that the only forces in the uni¬ 
verse are the forces of nature with which 
science deals and produces her results. This 
leads to the question of the supernatural, which 
I will not consider at present. 

In the Christian-Evangelist of Sept. 16, 
1920, page 935, is a statement by Charles F. 
Hutsler, minister of the Christian Church of 
Palo Alto, Calif. It is as follows: 

“We have organized a Christian fraternity among 
our Christian Church students in Stanford, which has 
proved a very potent factor in conserving their spiritual 
interests during their university career. I learned after 
only a few weeks’ labor here that many of our Chris¬ 
tian men and women are not only lost to our own 
brotherhood, but also to the cause of Christ, when they 
come under the influence of this institution. Thus it 
was imperative that we have some special agency which 
would save them from such a fate.” 

The above statement needs no comment. 
The fact that such a condition is possible in a 
great university is a sad comment on the effi¬ 
ciency of Christian civilization. The university 

102 



Atheism in Our Universities 


is supposed to exist for the good of the people, 
but what are we to think of the intelligence of 
Christian fathers and mothers who will subject 
their sons and daughters to such unfavorable 
influences? The atmosphere of an institution, 
due frequently to the dominating influence of 
one or a few minds, has much to do with the 
character of students. One healthy skunk can 
perfume a large area. 

But I am not writing especially about Stan¬ 
ford University. What is said of that may, I 
feel sure, be said of a large number of our 
leading universities. Some who have answered 
my questions have indicated that the teaching 
of evolution, as often taught, has had a bane¬ 
ful influence on Christian teaching. 


103 



VII. 


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE 

By Charles W. Eliot, President Emeritus 
of Harvard University, and by Arthur 
T. Hadley, Ex-President of Yale. 

C HARLES W. ELIOT, president emeritus 
of Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., 
answers my questionnaire as follows (I omit 
the preliminary statement) : 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“Evolution does not seem to me 
to be a science of creation, or of anything else. 
It is merely a scientific hypothesis. As such, 
it has been of great service in the progress 
of biological science during the past sixty 
years. ’ ’ 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“Le Conte’s definition of evolu¬ 
tion is correct, but only as a statement of a 

changing or developing theory.” 

104 


Atheism in Our Universities 


3. Is not evolution a universal process, be¬ 
ginning in the inorganic world and flowing as 
a continuous stream through the ages, includ¬ 
ing all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not 
the one universal process ? the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“To the first and second questions 
the answer is yes. To the third question the 
answer is that the evolution hypothesis is not 
a science at all.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“Evolution is only a theory.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution con¬ 
sistent with the miracles commonly attributed 
to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“One who believes evolution to be 
a universal process which describes God’s 
habitual mode of action will have difficulty in 
accepting as facts or correct narratives of ac¬ 
tual events the Gospel accounts of the miracles 
attributed to Christ.” 

I fully agree with this statement. Cosmic, 
theistic evolution has no place for miracles. 
It repudiates Christ by denying His miracles. 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of evo¬ 
lution in our public schools on the commonly 

105 



Atheism in Our Universities 


accepted teachings of the New Testament? In 
what way must this teaching be modified? 

Answer—“Evolution can not be taught ex¬ 
cept to the older pupils in the public schools. 
To apprehend the hypothesis needs good mental 
faculties and a certain maturity of mind. I 
should think that good teaching of the evolu¬ 
tionary hypothesis to competent children in the 
public schools might diminish, in the recipients 
of the instruction, their faith in the ordinary 
Catholic or evangelical Protestant interpreta¬ 
tions of the New Testament. ” 

The great majority of those who have an¬ 
swered my questions agree that evolution is not 
a science, but only a theory. It is so wide and 
complex and difficult in its details that only 
the few have the training and mental equip¬ 
ment to give it the proper consideration. I 
do not believe that evolution ought to be taught 
even “to the older pupils in the public 
schools.” I am sure that the teachers who 
would teach the subject are not fully pre¬ 
pared to present both sides as should be done 
when taught. I believe that the teaching of 
evolution is mostly dogmatic, and that the re¬ 
sult of teaching it is a new crop of dogmatists. 
I am aware that there are those who hold that 
the subject of evolution greatly expands the 
mind. I think that, as taught, it warps the 
mind and closes it against much truth. 

106 



Atheism in Our Universities 


President Eliot expresses the opinion “that 
good teaching of the evolutionary hypothesis 
to competent children in the public schools” 
might diminish their faith in the commonly 
accepted interpretations of the Scriptures 
among Catholics and Protestants. 

The great question with regard to teach¬ 
ing this theory is as to its effects on the funda¬ 
mentals of Christianity. The hope of civiliza¬ 
tion is founded on the teaching of Christ, as 
presented in the New Testament. It is common¬ 
ly believed by Christian people that Christian¬ 
ity is the only universal religion and that Christ 
is the only perfect example. The great effort 
of the Christian world is to proclaim Christ 
to the many millions of people in the heathen 
world. The theory of evolution as proclaimed 
by Darwin, in which chance is the only fac¬ 
tor, does not support the Christian religion. 
Mr. Darwin said: “Science and religion must 
each run its course; I am not responsible if 
the meeting-point be far away.” Missionaries 
are not being sent by Christian people to the 
heathen world to proclaim Darwinism with 
the hope of thus redeeming the heathen from 
their degradation. Darwinism has no sys¬ 
tem of ethics. Its great principle—“natural 
selection,” “survival of the fittest”—is one 
of absolute selfishness, which defies the princi¬ 
ple of universal love. 


107 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Evolution can not account for conscience, 
for the use of that “imperious word ought,’’ 
for self-consciousness, for abstract ideas, for 
man’s belief in one supreme God, for his be¬ 
lief in a spiritual world and a future life. In 
the psychological world, in the ethical and re¬ 
ligious worlds, evolution is helpless to account 
for the present order of things, because it 
places all things on the basis of naturalism, 
which is the only scientific basis on which it 
can exist. While there may be differences of 
interpretation, and in many cases wrong in¬ 
terpretations, of parts of the Scriptures, there 
is substantial agreement among all the creeds 
of Christendom as to the Fatherhood of God, 
the deity of Christ and the inspiration of the 
Bible. Even the theistic evolution, that con¬ 
fines God solely to the method of naturalism, 
uproots these beliefs, which have been stamped 
on the human mind for thousands of years, 
have determined the course of Christian 
civilization, have been a refuge in times of 
trouble, and have been the guiding star that 
has led the best of the race in its forward 
march. 

Beecher said to Ingersoll on one occasion: 
“As I was passing along the street, I saw a 
large, strong man attack a poor cripple, 
who was crossing the street on crutches. He 
knocked him down in the mud and broke his 

108 



Atheism in Our Universities 


crutches. What ought to be done to that 
man?” Ingersoll answered that he ought to 
be severely dealt with. ‘ ‘Thou art the man!” 
exclaimed Beecher. “You would take away 
the Bible, on which the human race has been 
hobbling as on crutches, and give nothing in 
return.’’ And so the theory of evolution, with 
its countless assumptions, eliminates Chris¬ 
tianity, which has supported tottering human¬ 
ity, and gives nothing in return. This theory 
is cold and intellectual, and can never satisfy 
the heart longings of humanity. 

The life of Christ, a perfect living being, 
full of wisdom and truth, who “went about 
doing good,” whose life touched humanity in 
all its phases, whose guiding motto was love to 
God and love to man, is worth more to the race 
than all the theories invented by man since the 
foundation of the world. The great question 
is, What shall guide the ignorant, struggling 
race along its devious path? 

The educational system in the universities 
of Japan is fruitful in agnostics and atheists. 
The so-called modern thought, propagated by 
infidel teachers, is in the ascendency, and will 
increase the passion for suicide that prevails 
among many educated Japanese. 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 

which you were president? 

109 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“I imagine that the hypothesis 
of evolution is accepted and taught by all the 
teachers and students of science in Harvard 
University, although different minds entertain 
very different views of the meaning and 
value of the hypothesis. It is ten years, how¬ 
ever, since I resigned the presidency of Har¬ 
vard, so that I can not speak confidently about 
the present attitude of the university as a 
whole towards evolution, because the theory 
itself, or the statement of it, changes rapidly 
with the advance of knowledge and the in¬ 
coming of new visions and expressions con¬ 
cerning it.” 

In the above, President Eliot expresses the 
opinion that the teachers and the students of 
science in Harvard generally accept the hy¬ 
pothesis of evolution, but that “different minds 
entertain very different views of the meaning 
and value of the hypothesis.” I think that 
this expresses the attitude of the minds of 
most people who have considered the subject, 
both as to its truth and its value. There is 
no general agreement as to what evolution is, 
but there is a vague idea in the minds of 
many that it is the one thing in recent times 
that must he accepted, because it is the fad of 
the times. Whisky was, for a good while, 
considered the universal remedy for all ills 

of the flesh, and the word “evolution” has 

110 



Atheism in Our Universities 


been introduced into the psychological phar¬ 
macopoeia, and is regarded by many as 
a universal panacea for all philosophical 
troubles. 

As an illustration of the inefficiency of the 
average college graduate in teaching, Transyl¬ 
vania College had, several years ago, a gradu¬ 
ate of Harvard as a teacher in the Depart¬ 
ment of Science. This excellent young man 
felt it his duty on various occasions to teach 
the doctrine of evolution. He regarded the 
doctrine as true because he had been taught 
it in the university. He would close his re¬ 
marks by saying: “I don’t know much about 
it; you need not tell anybody.” I take it that 
his knowledge of the subject was a fair aver¬ 
age of that of the college graduate generally. 


Pres, (now ex-Pres.) Arthur T. Hadley’s 
Answers to Questionnaire. 

Yale University. 

New Haven, Conn., June 14, 1920. 

My Dear Sir :—Evolution means orderly 
growth. It is a process, not a science. The 
word “evolution” is sometimes used to mean 
a theory that all the phenomena in the world 
are marked by orderly growth, as distinct 
from sudden changes; but even this is rather 

a stretch of the meaning of the word. In the 

111 




Atheism in Our Universities 


light of these sentences, I can answer your 
questions. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“No.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) by means of resi¬ 
dent forces,” correct? 

Answer—“Yes, as far as subhead (1) and 
subhead (2) are concerned. Subhead (3) 
appears to limit the definition more than 
general usage would approve. Webster’s 
dictionary does better.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing 
as a continuous stream through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process ? the one univtersal 
science ? 

Answer—“It is quite possible that it may 
be a universal process; but it has not been 
proved, and the proof is likely to be very diffi¬ 
cult. It is not a universal science, because it 
is not a science at all.” 

It is evident, I think, that the above 
question, involving cosmic evolution and in¬ 
cluding organic evolution as a logical part of 

112 



Atheism in Our Universities 


it, must remain a hypothesis for lack of proof. 
But is not this the hypothesis that the world 
is asked to accept as a substitute for a large 
part of the Christian religion? 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science, 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“Already answered at the begin¬ 
ning. ’’ 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Evolution, or orderly growth, 
is the antithesis of miracles or sudden arrests 
of natural laws. The development of a 
belief in evolution, therefore, makes people 
more critical of the testimony in support of 
the miracles. But beware of assuming that 
there is any such thing as a scientific doctrine 
of evolution. Different theories of evolution 
have been held during the last twenty-five 
hundred years, and it would be premature to 
characterize any one of them as a scientific 
doctrine. ” 

“Evolution or orderly growth is the antith¬ 
esis of miracles or sudden arrest of natural 
laws,” says President Hadley. 

It is evident that the burden of proof is 
upon him who claims that an event has 
occurred that can not be attributed to natural 
forces; as, for example, the turning of water 
8 113 



Atheistn in Our Universities 


into wine, the sudden healing of a leper or the 
raising of the dead. Such events are spoken 
of as miracles, and are regarded as super¬ 
natural events. The things of the existence of 
which we are certain are the different kinds 
of matter, the forces of nature and some psy¬ 
chological phenomena. Chemism, heat, light, 
electricity, magnetism, gravitation, are some 
of the forces that exist. The forces do me¬ 
chanical work on matter, giving it various 
kinds of motions. Without the action of force 
the matter of the universe would remain sta¬ 
tionary. Forces produce results by acting in 
conflict with each other, the stronger force 
overcoming the weaker. We take it for 
granted here that theism is true, that God 
reigns, and that all that He does harmonizes 
everywhere and at all times. In some sense 
it may be accepted that God works according 
to fixed laws, both in the physical and spiritual 
worlds. 

Do not, however, let us put God in a 
straitjacket by an improper conception of law. 
Laws in the physical world are simply the 
methods according to which the forces pro¬ 
duce their results. In chemistry the results 
produced by the chemical forces that reside in 
the atoms themselves can, under known condi¬ 
tions, be foretold with great precision. The 

chemist is certain that when two volumes of 

114 



Atheism in Our Universities 


hydrogen and one volume of oxygen are 
mixed and caused to unite by the introduc¬ 
tion of a spark that water will be the product 
of the union. He is certain that they always 
unite in the same proportion to form water; 
in other words, that water has a fixed composi¬ 
tion. 

Pass a current of electricity through the 
water, and it is separated into its two constit¬ 
uent elements—hydrogen and oxygen. The 
electricity has undone the work of the chemi¬ 
cal force by shaking apart the united atoms 
of the two elements. It does this according 
to laws of electricity, as we are accustomed 
to say. The law as to the action of hy¬ 
drogen and oxygen upon each other and the 
law as to the effect of electricity on water 
are equally fixed and unchangeable. One 
law annihilated another law. Electricity 
overcame chemism. Was it a miracle? 
Verily not. 

The growing plant overcomes, decomposes, 
the chemical compounds, thus overcoming the 
chemical forces of the substances from which 
it obtains food to build up its tissues. It is 
compelled to contend with and to overcome 
the inorganic forces of nature in order that it 
may live. The animal decomposes plant sub¬ 
stances, reorganizes them, and thus builds up 

its own tissues—and all according to so-called 

115 



Atheism in Our Universities 


laws. The fact is that nature’s processes are 
carried on by perpetual conflict of opposing 
forces, each acting according to its own 
methods. She does not do her work by har¬ 
mony of forces, but by conflict, in which the 
strongest gain the victory. 

The forces of nature are the tools with 
which man carries out his infinite purposes. 
He is obliged, when he uses a force to do 
work, to take notice of the ways in which it 
will act. He does not try to run a steam- 
engine with electricity nor a dynamo directly 
by steam. 

Great fires sometimes rage in the forests 
of the West, destroying millions of cords of 
wood, and the immense quantity of heat is 
soon radiated into space. That is all that 
nature can do with the heat. The mind of 
man can cause that wood to generate heat 
that can be applied to countless machines, 
manufacture all useful articles, ply ocean 
steamers, move a thousand locomotives through 
the land, carrying freight and passengers; in 
other w r ords, the human mind can cause a 
given quantity of heat to perform endless 
kinds of work that nature fails to do. Man’s 
mind is supreme in directing the forces of 
nature. It determines the work to be done, 
and directs the various forces into channels 
where they do the desired work. 

116 



Atheism in Our Universities 


President Hadley says: “Evolution or 
orderly growth is the antithesis of miracles 
or sudden arrests of natural laws.” We have 
seen that in the case of hydrogen and oxygen 
to form water according to a chemical law the 
decomposition of water is effected by elec¬ 
tricity according to its laws. In this case, 
has not the electricity arrested the “natural 
law” of chemistry that caused the elements 
to unite in a definite proportion and that holds 
them in union as water? Heat disintegrates 
practically all the compounds formed in the 
organic world. In doing this, does not heat, 
a force , acting according to “natural law,” 
overcome a great number of “natural laws,” 
forces, by which the organic compounds have 
been formed, and by which they continue 
their existence? What is meant by the “sud¬ 
den arrest of natural laws” in performing 
miracles ? 

All chemical action, all physical results, all 
processes in the living world, all human activ¬ 
ity directed by mind, involves the overcoming 
of certain forces or resistances, acting in their 
respective spheres, by superior forces. The 
combustion of coal under a boiler, involving 
the action of chemical forces, produces steam, 
which, by its expansive force, produces me¬ 
chanical motion of the piston of the engine; 

this imparts mechanical motion to the dynamo, 

117 



Atheism in Our Universities 


which converts its mechanical motion into 
magnetism and a current of electricity, and 
the current gives rise to light for illuminating 
purposes; it runs motors that do the mechani¬ 
cal work of driving cars and machinery of 
many kinds; it reduces metals from ores, thus 
doing chemical work; magnetizes great arti¬ 
ficial magnets, that lift many tons, or it may 
be converted into heat for cooking and heat¬ 
ing purposes. Instead of starting with fuel 
under the boiler, we might have begun with a 
falling weight, as is done at Niagara Falls, 
to obtain these various results. The correla¬ 
tion of forces indicates that all the forces in 
the inorganic world are manifestations of one 
force. The infinite variety of results that may 
be wrought by this force in its many forms 
and under different names ought to make us 
slow to try to put a limit to the manifesta¬ 
tions of force in the affairs of the world. 
We are in no condition to declare that this 
or that is not in accord with the ‘‘laws of 
nature,” since we are not in a position to 
determine what the possibilities are. The 
miracles and the revelations of the Bible are 
no more wonderful than the natural proc¬ 
esses that are going on everywhere in 
nature, but naturalism seeks to eliminate 
them because she can not bring them within 
her process. 


118 



Atheism in Our Universities 


As already indicated, in considering the 
correlation of forces, we deal with the same 
force from beginning to end, but it differs so 
much in its successive stages that we give it 
different names, and the methods of its action, 
or its laws, differ greatly from each other. 
Involved in the series are the laws of falling 
bodies, laws of chemical action, laws of heat, 
laws of light, laws of electricity, laws of mag¬ 
netism, laws of mechanics. Here, then, we 
have a series of laws , methods of action of 
forces, of the same force under different mani¬ 
festations and known by different names. 

It is under the control of mind that cor¬ 
relations of force are especially made to mani¬ 
fest themselves. The world, until recent times, 
sat in ignorance of most of these facts. Mind 
is the dominant power over force in its various 
manifestations. Force is the tool with which 
mind works its purposes in the world. 

The relation between mind and force is 
of supreme importance. Mind is more than 
mechanical force. There is no genetic rela¬ 
tion between any psychological manifestation 
and the forces of the inorganic world. Feel¬ 
ing, reason, instinct, conscience, self-conscious¬ 
ness, universal love and all mental powers are 
entirely beyond the region of the various 
manifestations of force in the inorganic world. 

These powers demand for their beginning the 

119 



Atheism in Our Universities 


exercise of an intelligent force. Evolution has 
made absolute failure to prove the origin of 
any mental power . She must call to her aid 
the power that can perform a miracle, though 
she refuses to call that power “God.” As a 
scientific process, evolution must stand alone. 

Man is continually destroying the works 
of nature which natural forces, acting accord¬ 
ing to their methods, laws, have produced. His 
mind compels his body to undo much of na¬ 
ture’s handiwork. With humanity in the 
saddle, with mind everywhere in action, with 
freedom of the will, there is no predetermined 
goal for human events, no fixed channel in 
which history runs. There can be none while 
man is a free moral agent. 

Man habitually prevents the action of the 
forces of nature, so that these forces, or laws, 
as they are called, do not produce the effect 
that they would otherwise produce. His 
mind makes him supreme in managing the 
forces of nature, so that new and original 
work is done. 

Yet, in accomplishing his purpose, man 
must continually recognize that each force 
acts in certain definite ways, that we call laws. 

President Hadley speaks of miracles as in¬ 
volving “sudden arrests of natural laws.” 

It seems to me that he uses the word as a sub- 

120 



Atheism in Our Universities 


stitute for forces. The laws of nature are not 
forces, but the methods according to which 
the foices act. Man, by controlling the forces 
of nature, performs what I call human mira¬ 
cles. He obtains his results by causing cer¬ 
tain forces to overcome other forces. For ex¬ 
ample, he makes a locomotive by causing nat¬ 
ural forces to act upon different kinds of 
matter, thus overcoming forces by the use 
of stronger forces. If God were to make a 
locomotive as man makes it, we would call it 
a miracle. 

The fundamental principle involved in per¬ 
forming a miracle is, as far as I can see, the 
overcoming of certain forces by means of 
stronger forces directed by God Himself in a 
supernatural way. A miracle does not involve 
a conflict with nature any more than actually 
exists among the forces of nature. Every¬ 
where these forces are doing their work by 
conflicting with each other. We strand our¬ 
selves in thinking by the use of the word 
“law,” a word that is thought to represent 
that which is immutable in nature. Now, in 
an important sense, as I have shown, law, the 
action of the forces, is not immutable. Under 
the direction of mind the various forces are 
plastic, being guided into a great number of 
channels. The great mistake that universal 

evolution makes is its claim that the forces 

121 



Atheism in Our Universities 


manifested in the inorganic world are the sum 
total of forces that exist in the universe, and 
that, consequently, out of their action on mat¬ 
ter sprang all things. 

There must be a power above the physical 
powers of nature which could have done the 
supernatural work that evidently has been 
done, and this power the Christian calls God. 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the common¬ 
ly accepted teachings of the New Testament? 
In what way must this teaching be modified? 

Answer—“It will be good. It will com¬ 
pel people to lay more stress on the moral and 
spiritual elements .’’ 

President Hadley has already said that 
“evolution, or orderly growth, is the antith¬ 
esis of miracles. ’ ’ In other words, the 
theory of evolution eliminates miracles from 
the New Testament, and this “will he good,” 
because “it will compel people to lay more 
stress on the moral and spiritual elements.” 
This is a fair statement of a prevalent view; 
but, according to the views of those who ac¬ 
cept the “deity of Christ,” which includes the 
overwhelming mass of the Catholic and Protes¬ 
tant worlds, the above view repudiates Christ 
by denying His miracles. It makes Him 

only an erring man; denies the miracle of the 

122 



Atheism in Our Universities 


resurrection of His body; makes impossible 
His commandments to His apostles, given 
after His resurrection, to “go into all the 
world, and preach the gospel to every crea¬ 
ture;” makes impossible His ascension, because 
He had not been raised from the dead, and 
impossible a “kingdom of heaven,” over which 
He is to be the “eternal King.” 

Of course the ethics of the New Testament, 
“the moral and the spiritual element,” are 
of vast importance. Even Haeckel approves 
the Golden Rule and the law of love as the 
best ethics for his monism, but he denies the 
existence of God, repudiates Christ and the 
Bible, and places belief in a future life as an 
unsupported dogma. 

The “moral and the spiritual element” in 
Christianity may well be stressed much more 
than it has been—this ought to be done; but, 
on the other hand, anything that lessens the 
supremacy of Christ by denying the truth of 
any part of His teaching, as set forth in the 
New Testament, brings Him into disrepute. 
When men’s faith in Christ as the “Lamb of 
God who takes away the sins of the world” 
fails, then there can be no kingdom of heaven 
wherein dwelleth righteousness. The question 
with regard to Christ is, not what is most 
important in His teaching and work, but have 

the writers of the Gospels given correct ac- 

123 



Atheism in Our Universities 


counts of what He said and did? To elimi¬ 
nate from the records all the accounts of 
miracles, as evolution does, is to weaken the 
value of what remains. Do unto others as 
you would have them do unto you, is a state¬ 
ment of vast practical importance. Men can 
not see, however, that this Golden Buie is 
necessarily a revelation from God. But when 
they saw Jesus perform miracles, they said: 
“No man can do the works that thou doest 
unless God be with him.” The elimination 
of miracles by the teaching of evolution can 
have but a destructive effect on the essential 
doctrines of Christianity. This teaching also 
denies the inspiration of the Bible as held by 
Christians. 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“We show the facts in evolution, 
in biology and history as fully as we can. We 
try not to teach this, or anything else, as a 
doctrine.” 

I do not see how the word “evolution,” 
as applied to the material organic world, in 
which genetic continuity is a necessary part 
of the process, can be applied to human his¬ 
tory which grows out of free mental proc¬ 
esses of many minds where continuity does 

not exist. We may, of course, think of the 

124 



Atheism in Our Universities 


changes that take place in the mental atti¬ 
tude of nations as evolution, but, when we do 
this, we give a new meaning to the word. It 
lacks mental continuity. The burning desire 
to find a word that includes all the physical 
and psychological changes in the universe has 
led to the use of the word 1 1 evolution.’ 9 But 
it has a variety of meanings. 

President Hadley’s statement that “evolu¬ 
tion means orderly growth” seems to be 
very general, and it might include all changes 
that take place in time. The meaning of the 
word has been definitely fixed for the organic 
world by Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” 

“We show the facts in evolution, in 
biology and history as fully as we can,” 
writes President Hadley. This is a fair state¬ 
ment. The facts ought to be shown, and both 
sides shown as fully as possible. 

I know not what the teaching of this sub¬ 
ject is in Yale University, so what I say 
bears upon the teaching of the subject in 
general. 

Several things are involved in the teach¬ 
ing of this, as of other subjects. 

First, “academic freedom,” which per¬ 
mits the teacher to teach anything he pleases 
concerning the subject which he is called upon 
to teach. This freedom is supposed to be 

democratic, and under it the teacher may ex- 

125 



Atheism in Our Universities 


press the most diverse views, sometimes hurt¬ 
ful to morals and religion, with the assurance 
that he will not be called to account. It 
would be well for some of the academic author¬ 
ities to remember that even the United States, 
where freedom is supposed to reign, has cer¬ 
tain laws by which she can condemn and ship 
Bolsheviks to Russia. The authorities of a 
university ought to feel equally free to deal 
with its Bolshevik teachers. From what I 
know of conditions, I feel sure that Ernest 
Haeckel would be undisturbed as a teacher 
in the chairs of some of our universities. 

Second, the attitude of the teacher towards 
his subject. It is very generally agreed that 
evolution is only a theory or hypothesis, and 
not a science. It is theoretically held to be 
provisional, while the impression that is made 
on the mind of the pupil is that it is estab¬ 
lished science. The teacher of this subject 
may be an atheist, an agnostic, a pantheist or 
a Christian. Probably he may be generally 
one of the first three. His views are crystal¬ 
lized on the subject of evolution. His pupils 
know in advance what his views are. Like 
the attorney that he is, he is armed with 
authorities to make clear his side of the case. 
In fact, to him, there is no other side of the 
case. He cites the books of great authors 

who agree with him, refers his students to 

120 



Atheism in Our Universities 


these books, which abound in the library 
(books of his own selection), and indicates 
that his views represent the universal consen¬ 
sus of the opinion of modern scholarship. He 
either ignores the other side or refers to it in 
a slighting way; says that they have written 
no books on the subject of any scientific value; 
says that they are old fogies, who have failed 
to catch “the modern vision,’’ and they are 
destitute of the “new thought.” The few 
volumes against evolution are buried beneath 
the hundreds which favor it, and these few 
are having a real “struggle for existence.” 

Third, the pupils who receive the instruc¬ 
tion. As a rule, the subject of evolution is 
new to them. They are ready to be guided by 
the teacher. They listen with receptive minds. 
They are empty vessels. They receive what 
is put into them. The personality of the 
teacher, and frequently his emphatic and dog¬ 
matic way of teaching, do the work. There 
can be but one result of the ordinary way of 
teaching this subject, and that is a new crop 
of dogmatic evolutionists, who know little of 
one side of the subject and nothing of the 
other. 

When taught in its fullness, it is a philoso¬ 
phy of the workings of the universe. Even 
when called theistic evolution, as a universal 

system of naturalism, it eliminates the super- 

127 



Atheism in Our Universities 


natural by denying all miracles, destroys the 
Bible as a book of revealed authority, and 
leaves the Christian religion stranded on the 
sands of naturalism. 

The prevailing methods used in the teach¬ 
ing of evolution very generally result in the 
Christian faith of the pupil being destroyed, 
his head being crammed with dogmatic misin¬ 
formation on the subject, and his being led 
to accept the “theory” of evolution as 
“science ” He is informed that unless he does 
so accept it he will be classed with the “old 
fogies,” and with those that are “out-of-date.” 

Such methods are so unfair to the pupil, to 
the public and to the Christian religion, the 
wonder is that we stand for them. Shall we 
not insist, if the subject be discussed at all, 
that both sides be presented by competent 
teachers? Else, is there not grave danger that 
Christianity may be doomed with the coming 
generations ? 


128 



VIII. 


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE 

By Dr. John J. Coss, Columbia University; 
Prof. R. M. Wenley, University of Michi¬ 
gan ; Professor Nachtricht, University of 
Minnesota; Pres. Frank J. Goodnow, of 
Johns Hopkins University; Pres. Wil¬ 
liam S. CuRRELL, BY PrOF. A. C. MOORE, 
University of South Carolina. 

Columbia University, Department op 
Philosophy. 

New York, June 24, 1920. 

My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

President Butler has asked me to reply to 
your letter of June 14. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“No; it has nothing to say on 
creation.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 

resident forces,” correct? 

9 129 


Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“No; progressive usually indi¬ 
cates a judgment as to good or bad. Evolu¬ 
tion does not concern itself with these terms.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing 
as a continuous stream through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place, or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process ? the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“There are doubtless links, but 
each kind of organism, or custom, should be 
separately studied. Any such generalization 
as Spencer made is probably incorrect.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“As a theory covering in the 
most acceptable fashion natural phenomena 
which are subject to observation.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“Many evolutionists would tend 
to explain the miracles in a naturalistic man¬ 
ner, though the connection between the two 
is not a necessary one.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com- 

130 



Atheism in Our Universities 


monly accepted teachings of the New Testa¬ 
ment? 

Answer— 4 ‘The religious inspirational side 
should be stressed rather than the static, non¬ 
developing conception. ’ , 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“Biological evolution is accepted, 
and the view that society changes in an un¬ 
derstandable way is generally held.” 

May I call your attention to two books 
with which you may be already thoroughly 
acquainted? One is M. M. Metcalfe’s ‘Or¬ 
ganic Evolution,’ and the other is Jordan and 
Kellogg’s ‘Evolution and Animal Life.’ 

Very truly yours, 

John J. Coss, Executive Officer. 

I have already expressed my opinions in 
what I have written that will serve as com¬ 
ments on the answers of Dr. Coss. In his 
answer to (3) it seems that he does not regard 
evolution as a universal process. In answer 
to (4) he accepts evolution “as a theory cover¬ 
ing in the most acceptable fashion natural 
phenomena that are subject to observation.” 
This being true, the process could not be 
universal. I take it that his answer to (5) 

eliminates the miracles and the so-called doc- 

131 



Atheism in Our Universities 


trinal parts from the New Testament. An¬ 
swer to (7) shows that evolution is accepted 
in biology and history. Evolution is the only 
theory which naturalism, with any plausibility, 
can advance. The great question is: Does it 
necessarily eliminate supernaturalism? I do 
not see how “society changes in an under¬ 
standable way” by evolution, in the sense in 
which the word is used in biology. The latter 
has to do with physical forms, between which 
must exist genetic continuity, and the former 
with the psychology of free individuals where 
no such continuity is possible. 


University of Michigan. 

Ann Arbor, Mich. 

Prof. R. M. Wenley answers questionnaire 
on the request of President Hutchins. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“This seems to me to be quite 
misleading.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer —“May be sufficient as to the how; 
says nothing as to the why, and omits the all- 
important problem of the unity of continuity 

132 




Atheism in Our Universities 


and change. How can such a unity be 
thought ? ’ ’ 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing 
in a continuous stream through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place, or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process? the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“We are in no position to affirm 
so on available evidence.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer— 11 1 prefer to regard it as a 
hypothesis, in the strict logical sense of the 
term. ’ ’ 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“In my opinion this question is 
so framed as to be incapable of reply. I had 
always understood that the New Testament 
miracles were attributed to the historical 
Jesus.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of evo¬ 
lution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teachings of the New Testa¬ 
ment? 


133 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“I can not see it will have any 
effect other than the teaching of any scientific 
method must have. And this does not affect 
the New Testament, but merely certain theo¬ 
logical interpretations of it—about which there 
seem to be very wide variations of view 
among theologians themselves.’’ 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the University of 
Michigan ? 

Answer—“[Representatives of the biological 
sciences assume it precisely as representatives 
of the physical sciences assume the Newton- 
Laplace-Maxwell hypothesis. ’ ’ 

Professor Wenley’s answers to Questions 1, 
2, 3 and 4 are, I think, correct. I fail to un¬ 
derstand why he can not answer 5. There is 
certainly enough of the “historical Jesus” in 
the Gospels to enable one to answer as to 
Christ’s miracles. The question involves the 
fundamental difficulty that evolution has raised 
with regard to Christ. I can not agree with 
his answer to 6. In his answer to 4 he re¬ 
gards evolution “as a hypothesis in the strict 
logical sense of the term.” In 6 he puts the 
teaching of this “hypothesis” on the basis of 
a “scientific method,” thus clothing it with 
the dignity of the word “science.” Teachers 
talk of evolution as a hypothesis and then talk 

134 



Atheism in Our Universities 


of it as a fact as well established as the laws 
of gravitation. He says that teachers of “the 
biological sciences assume it precisely as repre¬ 
sentatives of the physical sciences assume the 
Newton-Laplace-Maxwell hypothesis. ’ ’ They do 
assume it y and there’s the pity of it, and make 
it the backbone of the “ science” of evolution. 

Question 6 involves the effects of this teach¬ 
ing on the commonly accepted teaching of 
the New Testament. It is true that all sciences 
have more or less hypothesis connected with 
them, but in none of them does a hypothesis 
so dominate the whole subject as does that of 
evolution. Soon after Darwin’s “Origin of 
Species” appeared, theologians were quick to 
recognize the fact that the hypothesis of evolu¬ 
tion affected the religion of the Bible in a way 
that no science had done up to that time. A 
theory that derives man from brute ancestors 
by way of descent physically and mentally 
forced itself upon the consideration of Chris¬ 
tian people. This hypothesis, evolution, un¬ 
verified and unverifiable, has been forced be¬ 
fore the world as science, and many people 
have become alarmed, and said, “We must 
conform our teaching to science;” when, in 
fact, they could, at most, only conform to a 
theory. 

Professor Wenley says that evolution “does 

not affect the New Testament, but merely cer- 

135 



Atheism in Our Universities 


tain theological interpretations of it,” and that 
theologians differ as to interpretations. They 
are agreed as to the one God, the Father of 
all men, as to the deity of Jesus Christ, as to 
the existence of the Holy Spirit, as to the in¬ 
spiration of the Bible and the miracles of the 
Bible. Evolution, depending upon chance, ac¬ 
cording to Darwin, has no place for God, in¬ 
spiration or miracles—it puts all on the basis 
of naturalism, which is the only scientific basis 
on which it can be placed. 


University op Minnesota. 

Pres. Marion Le Roy Burton, of the Uni¬ 
versity of Minnesota, by Professor Nachtricht. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“Not good because terms used 
require definition.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“No.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing 
as a continuous stream through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place, or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 

136 




Atheism in Our Universities 


one universal process ? the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—‘‘Depends on what you are aim¬ 
ing at. Too comprehensive for the original 
line of thought .’’ • 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Theory. ’ 9 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—‘ ‘ On certain assumptions, yes. 
On certain assumptions, no.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teachings of the New Testa¬ 
ment? In what way must this teaching be 
modified ? 

Answer—“Properly taught, it should not 
conflict with the life of Jesus Christ. This 
can not be said of the New Testament.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“All the biologists believe in 
evolution. Some differences of opinion on 
details.” 

Professor Nachtricht evidently does not 

accept the New Testament as correct history. 

137 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Johns Hopkins University. 

President’s Office. 

Baltimore, Md., Aug. 13, 1920. 

My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

I am enclosing your questionnaire of July 
8, answered by one of our professors, who is 
particularly qualified to make the replies re¬ 
quested. I am, very truly yours, 

Frank J. Goodnow. 

My Letter, with Comments and Answers 
by President Goodnow’s Representative. 

u Dear Sir :—I have been making inquiry 
for the purpose of obtaining reliable informa¬ 
tion as to the status of the subject of Dar¬ 
winism or any other doctrine of evolution in 
our educational system. A number of the 
superintendents of pubLc instruction and 
presidents of normal schools have written to 
me on the subject. From their answers I in¬ 
fer that Darwinism, or some theory of evolu¬ 
tion, is commonly accepted and taught in 
practically all of our high schools, normal 
schools, colleges and universities. There does 
not, however, seem to be agreement as to the 
meaning of the word ‘evolution.’ For the 
purpose of obtaining a correct definition, 
especially, I write to you and a number of 
others. ’ ’ 


138 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Comment by the Johns Hopkins Professor: 
“The writer seems to use the words ‘evolu¬ 
tion ’ and ‘organic evolution’ as interchange¬ 
able. They are very different in scope. Or¬ 
ganic evolution is the process by which one 
organism undergoes modification and gives 
rise to an organism possessing other features, 
ultimately a different species.” 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“No. Evolution is a process, not 
a science. The phrase is not a definition, but 
a personal point of view.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Evolution involves progressive 
change, though not necessarily continuous nor 
always one of advancement in the scale of 
being. Many of the laws governing the proc¬ 
ess are obscure, while No. 3 is still more open 
to question. It is not well to make one’s defi¬ 
nition include too many hypotheses.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, be¬ 
ginning in the inorganic world and flowing, as 
a continuous stream, through the ages, includ¬ 
ing all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place or that will take place 

in the future? In other words, is it not the 

139 



Atheism in Our Universities 


one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

There is no answer by the Professor to this 
question. The question shows, however, that 
the writer is mistaken in his preliminary re¬ 
mark that I seem to use the w r ords “evolu¬ 
tion” and “organic evolution” as inter¬ 
changeable. 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Evolution is a process, neither 
a science nor a theory. The view that organic 
beings have undergone evolution is a hypoth¬ 
esis of considerable probability. The Dar¬ 
winian form of this hypothesis needs modifica¬ 
tion.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“There is no conflict in truths 
from different realms. The discussion that 
has often arisen about the matter seems 
to have beclouded the question in many 
cases.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in the public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teaching of the New Testa¬ 
ment? In what way must this teaching be 
modified ? 


140 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“It depends wholly on the 
breadth of view and clearness of thought of 
the person discussing the matter. I suggest 
that science be taught as science, and religion 
as religion, with confidence in the truth of 
both. An occasional discussion of their rela¬ 
tions is desirable if given by a competent 
man. ’ ’ 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—‘ ‘ I suppose all students of 
natural sciences view evolution of organisms 
as highly probable. We are, however, keenly 
aware of the existence of many difficulties in 
the current hypothesis/’ 

Concerning answer No. 5. Of course, 
“there is no conflict in truths from different 
realms/’ But many evolutionists do not 
admit that there are “different realms.” Ac¬ 
cording to them, there is but one realm, and 
it all belongs to evolution. When one admits 
a supernatural realm which accords with the 
natural, he gets into the region of revelation 
and miracles, which can not be accepted as a 
part of naturalism. 

His first sentence in answer to No. 6 in¬ 
volves the competency of the teacher. I have 
already expressed the opinion that in most 

cases the teacher is not competent to teach the 

141 



Atheism in Our Universities 


subject. He is simply an advocate of one 
side of a theory, and his pupils are mostly 
passive recipients of what he teaches them. 
The writer suggests that “science be taught 
as science, and religion as religion, with confi¬ 
dence in the truth of both.” This is good 
advice to those who can clearly distinguish 
the two. But he does not class evolution as 
science—it is only a “process.” I am glad 
that the Professor is “keenly aware of the 
existence of many difficulties in the current 
hypothesis. ’ 1 

University op South Carolina. 

(Columbia.) 

Pres. William S. Currell answers by A. C. 
Moore, Professor of Biology. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“Yes, but very general.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means 
of resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“Yes; more specific.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process be¬ 
ginning in the organic world and flowing, as 
a continuous stream, through the ages, includ¬ 
ing all physical and psychological changes that 

have taken place, or that will take place in the 

142 





Atheism in Our Universities 


future? In other words, is not evolution the 
one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Evolution is a universal law , 
like the law of gravitation. It is not a science.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“A law of development beyond 
the stage of theory.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly at¬ 
tributed to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer— 4 ‘Not inconsistent.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of evolu¬ 
tion in the public schools on the commonly 
accepted teaching of the New Testament? In 
what way must this teaching be modified? 

Answer—‘ ‘ It will make students more 
critical and will make for more careful and 
exact teaching of the Bible. Evolution is one 
fact in a great philosophy of life, and must 
be made to fit into that philosophy.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university 
of which you are president? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Entirely .’ 1 

In answering Question 1, Professor Moore 
accepts Cope’s statement that “evolution is 

the science of creation.” He answers by say- 

143 



Atheism in Our Universities 


ing ‘‘Yes, but very general.” He accepts it 
as science. In answering Question 3, he says: 
“It is not a science.” And further he says: 
“Evolution is a universal law, like the law of 
gravitation.” I understand that gravitation 
is a universal force and that the mathematical 
laws of its action have been determined. 
Gravitation is not a law, but a force. Evolu¬ 
tion is a very complex process brought about 
by various forces, the action of which will not 
admit of mathematical expression. I presume 
that Professor Moore means that evolution 
is a universal process. Being universal and 
resting on matter and the forces of nature 
as the only scientific basis, how can his 
answer to Question 5 be explained when he 
says that the scientific doctrine of evolution 
is “not inconsistent” with the miracles 
commonly attributed to Jesus Christ in 
the New Testament? If all events come under 
evolution, a scientific process, then no miracles 
could occur, for they demand a supernatural 
process. 

With regard to Question 6. I ask how it 
can be that “evolution is one fact in a great 
philosophy of life, and must be made to fit 
into that philosophy”? Evolution, according 
to the Professor, is universal, and, being so, 
every philosophy of life must be made to fit 

into it as a part of it. A process that is all- 

144 



Atheism in Our Universities 


inclusive can not be forced into a position 
where it becomes only a part of the process. 

The answer to Question 7. “Entirely” 
indicates that the theory is accepted and taught 
to the fullest extent. He says that evolution 
is “beyond the stage of theory.” The con¬ 
clusion is certainly very satisfying to the Pro¬ 
fessor. I am curious to know by what process 
of reasoning he reconciles universal process of 
evolution with miracles, 


10 


145 



IX. 


ANSWERS TO QUESTIONNAIRE 

By President Campbell by Prop. John F. 
Bovard, of University of Oregon; Pres. 
Robert F. Vinson by Prof. D. B. Casteel, 
University of Texas ; Pres. J. Ross Steven¬ 
son by W. Brent Greene, Jr., Princeton 
Theological Seminary; Pres. John Grier 
Hibben by Prof. E. G. Conklin, Prince¬ 
ton University; Pres. Lemuel H. Murlin, 
of Boston University. 

“University of Oregon. 

“Eugene, Ore., Aug. 11, 1920. 
“My Bear Professor Fairhurst: 

“I am forwarding your letter to Dr. John 
F. Bovard, in whose department the question 
of Darwinism most frequently arises, and 
who can answer your questions specifically. 

“In a general way I can assure you that 
the principles of Darwinism are accepted in the 
University of Oregon, and no conflict is found 
between them and Scriptural teachings. 

“Karl W. Onthank, Sec.” 

146 




Atheism in Our Universities 


Professor Bovard writes, Sept. 19, 1920: 
“My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

“President Campbell has referred your let¬ 
ter to me for reply. I am glad to state what 
I know, in a very general treatment. 

“The specific thing that you may be reason¬ 
ably sure of is that evolution is a fact, and 
not a theory. There are a great many theories 
as to how evolution came about, but, as I 
understand it, very few people to-day doubt 
the fact of evolution.” 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“I would say ‘Yes’ to this 
question, provided you apply it in its broadest 
phases, and do not make it too specific.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“I believe that Le Conte’s defini¬ 
tion that evolution ‘is continuous, progressive 
change, according to fixed laws, and by means 
of resident forces,’ is a very fair way of 
stating the processes.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 

that have taken place or that will take place 

147 



Atheism in Our Universities 


in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“If one is absolutely consistent 
in his belief in evolution, he must include 
the inorganic world as well as the organic. 
In other words, it must be a universal proc¬ 
ess. ’ ’ 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only as a theory? 

Answer—“Evolution is to be regarded as 
a fact, and not as a theory. ” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“The doctrine of evolution is not 
inconsistent with the miracles commonly at¬ 
tributed to Christ in the New Testament.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teaching of the New Testa¬ 
ment? In what way must this teaching be 
modified? 

Answer—“This is purely a matter of in¬ 
terpretation. My opinion is that the teach¬ 
ing of evolution in the public schools is a 
proper thing to do, just as it is the proper 
thing to teach any facts that are true. The 
only safeguard I would care to use would be 

148 



Atheism in Our Universities 


that those who teach the doctrine of evolution 
know what they are teaching about.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“The doctrine of evolution is ac¬ 
cepted through the whole university, and is 
taught in a good many classes, beginning with 
literature and proceeding through the whole 
curriculum to the science departments. The 
various departments and the various instruc¬ 
tors differ, however, in their opinions as to 
how evolution came about.” 

“Yours very truly, 

“John F. Bovard, 

“Dean of School of Physical Education.” 

The word “evolution,” since Darwin’s 
“Origin of Species” appeared, has, to most 
people, had a specific meaning. It has been 
applied to the organic world. The principle 
of natural selection would derive all existing 
species from previous species by an unbroken 
continuity of genetic descent. I think that 
many of those who answer my questionnaire 
are using the word “evolution” in a variety 
of senses. I suppose that no one who is at all 
acquainted with the facts doubts that, through 
a long period of time, before life appeared, 

the earth was undergoing changes, and that 

149 



Atheism in Our Universities 


during the long-past geological ages and 
down to the present time the earth has been 
modified in infinite ways; that during past 
time countless numbers of species of plants 
and animals have come and gone, and that 
from the time that man first appeared on the 
earth down to the present time human history 
has been undergoing continual change. It 
seems to me that many view all these changes 
in a general way, and call them evolution. But 
the whole thing can not properly be called 
evolution in the sense in which we apply the 
word to the living world. In the latter, gene¬ 
tic continuity is absolutely essential. No such 
continuity, however, can be traced between 
the processes as a whole, to which I have re¬ 
ferred. There is no known continuity from 
the inorganic world into the world of life, in¬ 
volving, as it does, spontaneous generation; 
there is no known continuity into the psychic 
world of feeling and instincts, no continuity 
into the many powers of human mind. 

Professor Bovard indicates that evolution 
is taught throughout the college curriculum. 
Does he mean to say that they teach the same 
kind of evolution in Latin, Greek, literature, 
mathematics and philosophy that the biologists 
teach, in which genetic continuity must exist? 
There has undoubtedly been development and 

progress in all of these subjects, but there can 

150 



Atheism in Our Universities 


not have been continuity in the sense indi¬ 
cated. It seems to me that many people have 
become obsessed by the word “evolution,” so 
that they call it into service on all occasions. 

Professor Bovard, in answering Question 
3, says that “if one is consistent in his belief 
in evolution he must include the inorganic 
world as well as the organic.” “In other 
words, it must be a universal process.” If 
it is a universal process, it is God’s only 
process. If, therefore, miracles can be per¬ 
formed, they must be done as a part of evolu¬ 
tion, which is claimed to be a scientific proc¬ 
ess by means of “resident” forces. But a 
miracle can not be classed as a part of a scien¬ 
tific process. 

I must say that I fail to see the advantages 
claimed for evolution in the educational world. 
I think it has served a large purpose in mis¬ 
directing the efforts of the human mind. 
There are plenty of words that will express all 
the changes that have taken place without 
using the word “evolution,” which has been 
misapplied in many cases. 

Professor Bovard says, in Question 6, 
that those who teach the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion should know what they are teaching. If 
this limitation is strictly applied, as it should 
be, the teaching of the subject will rapidly 

disappear. As a philosophy of creation, based 

151 



Atheism in Our Universities 


on the scientific method, taken in all of its bear¬ 
ings, it is the most complex and difficult sub¬ 
ject that has been considered by the human 
mind. The answers to my questionnaire, I 
think, show abundantly how poorly the sub¬ 
ject is understood even by those who are well 
educated. It is not a subject for most boys 
in their teens. 

Evolution, in its universal scope, is pro¬ 
foundly religious. It proposes to account for 
all religions, and, among them, the Christian 
religion, on the basis of naturalism, and, in 
doing this, it necessarily eliminates miracles, 
revelations, and all that is supernatural. It 
accepts the great ethical principles of the 
Bible as a necessity, for it has no ethics, its 
fundamental principle being that of pure 
selfishness. It has the ethics of ‘‘tooth and 
claw,” the ethics that “might is right,” 
which was the fundamental principle of Kaiser- 
ism, and which God repudiated. 

The Christian religion is the greatest asset 
of the race. Under its guiding influence the 
human race has made its greatest progress. 
Yet the Bible has occupied a very subordinate 
place in the curricula of our highest institu¬ 
tions. These curricula have been crowded 
with Greek and Latin for the purpose, as has 
been claimed, of giving a liberal education. 
Students have learned to read Cicero, Sopho- 

152 



Atheism in Our Universities 


cles and Homer; they have studied something 
of the wonderful architecture and sculpture 
of the Greeks; have learned a little about 
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle; have scanned 
parts of Sophocles and JEschylus and Eurip¬ 
ides; have read some about the age of Per¬ 
icles, and have, in fact, got a glimpse of that 
wonderful Greek civilization, under which was 
a cesspool of immorality. Greek civilization 
failed for lack of a moral basis. 

The Bible, the only book that condemns 
sin in all its forms, the only book that pre¬ 
sents an ideal character of teaching and con¬ 
duct in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, has 
been excluded from college curricula and 
trodden underfoot of men. And why? It is 
said that the formation of character ought to 
be the great aim of education. And yet we 
read remarkable things of Seniors in our 
highest institutions of learning; we read of 
their almost universal ignorance of the common 
facts of the Bible. How long will it take our 
higher education to come to itself? 

University of Texas. 

Office of the President. 

Austin, Tex., July 16, 1920. 
Prof. A. Fairhurst, Lexington, Ky. 

My Dear Sir :—Replying to your letter of 
June 17, containing certain questions with 

153 




Atheism in Our Universities 


reference to evolution and the manner in 
which it is presented in the University of 
Texas, I am sending you enclosed a statement 
which has been drawn up by Prof. D. B. 
Casteel, of our Department of Zoology, who is 
in charge of this course. In a letter of trans¬ 
mittal to me, Professor Casteel says: 

“I have endeavored to answer Professor 
Fairhurst’s questions in an impersonal manner, 
according to the opinion of the average scien¬ 
tist, so that you can transmit them to him as 
of such origin.” 

Very sincerely yours, 

Robert E. Vinson, Pres. 

Answers by Prof. D. B. Casteel, of the 
Department of Zoology: 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“Yes; in a figurative sense, but 
not as an exact definition.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct ? 

Answer—“It is essentially correct.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 



Atheism in Our Universities 


that have taken place, or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is not evolu¬ 
tion the one universal process, the one uni¬ 
versal science? 

Answer—“Yes.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer —‘ 1 The doctrine of evolution is a 
theory in the sense that it presents the most 
reasonable general explanation of the data of 
science. ’ ’ 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“As a scientific generalization, 
the doctrine of evolution bears no necessary 
relation to miracles.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teaching of the New Testa¬ 
ment? In what way must this teaching be 
modified ? 

Answer—“Without doubt the teaching of 
evolution in the public schools results in a cer¬ 
tain amount of mental unrest among thought¬ 
ful students. If properly imparted, however, 
such instruction will not offend, nor will it 
undermine the foundations of religious belief. 

In its broader sense, an evolutionary interpre¬ 
ts 




Atheism in Our Universities 


tation of nature in no way denies the actuality 
of a controlling power, and this conception 
of the method of ‘creation’ will, if rightly 
understood, lead to a truer appreciation of the 
extent of ‘the omniscience and the omnipo¬ 
tence resident in Divinity.’ ” 

“Science is founded upon facts, and its 
generalizations result from examination of 
hypotheses, wdiich are only accepted when they 
most reasonably explain available data. Re¬ 
ligious belief is primarily founded upon faith 
and experience, and its attitude towards 
evidence is less critical than that of 
science. Science and religion approach the 
question of the method of creation from essen¬ 
tially different standpoints. If this fact is 
realized by the teacher and transmitted to his 
students, much mental confusion may be 
avoided.” 

“The idea of evolution should be imparted 
in a natural manner, as a logical generaliza¬ 
tion from scientific facts, with which students 
are becoming familiar. Its acceptance should 
not be required, nor its rejections be ridiculed. 
As a rule, immature high-school students are 
unprepared for a proper consideration of 
evolution.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

156 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“In general, the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion is accepted, and those branches of science 
and philosophy which it affects are taught 
from the evolutionary standpoint.” 

Professor Casteel, in answering these ques¬ 
tions, shows that he recognizes the fact that 
evolution has vital bearing on the teachings 
of Christ as set forth in the New Testament. 
He seems to evade an answer to Question 5. 
Christ claimed to perform miracles. When 
the Professor answers “Yes” to Question 3, a 
part of which is “Is it not the one universal 
process, the one universal science?” he abso¬ 
lutely denies the possibility of miracles. 

When evolution claims the whole field as a 
scientific process, it, of necessity, excludes 
every supernatural process. 

The Professor says: “Without doubt, the 
teaching of evolution in the public schools re¬ 
sults in a certain amount of mental unrest 
among thoughtful students.” This means, to 
my mind, that the thoughtful pupils realize 
that the Christian teachings of the New 
Testament are being pushed aside in the 
interests of an unprovable hypothesis. Some 
of them, however, become so blinded that they 
abandon the Bible as a booh of divine author¬ 
ity. The question which evolution raises is 

not simply one of theism, a question which 

157 



Atheism in Our Universities 


does not necessarily include the Bible as a 
revelation at all, but it raises the question as 
to Christ 3 s teaching, works and authority . 
The latter, of necessity, involves miracles, 
while the former does not. The contention 
of the Christian is not simply for theism, but 
also for Christian theism, which involves the 
deity of Christ. 

Many evolutionists grant theism in some 
sense, grant the ethics of Christ, but this is 
the limit of their teaching. This only annihi¬ 
lates Christianity as a system of religion. Of 
course, evolution does not necessarily deny 
“the actuality of a controlling power”—one 
of “omniscience and omnipotence resident in 
Divinity.” The vital question arises: How 
has this Divinity manifested itself? Evolution, 
in its universal scope, says, “Only through 
natural processes;” and many add, “By 
means of resident forces.” 

I write in behalf of the thoughtful ^ew, 
whose faith may be wrecked by a scrap of a 
theory. Evolution, when considered in its 
entirety, is so illogical and deficient of a basis 
of known and knowable facts that few who 
know all will be led to accept it. They go 
chasing a word that changes its color and 
meaning in the flight of time, and, like a will- 
o’-the-wisp, leads one through dismal intellec¬ 
tual swamps in the vain pursuit of that which 

158 



Atheism in Our Universities 


can never be overtaken. Some of the thought¬ 
ful few are led astray in the vain endeavor 
to put all on a scientific basis. In what scien¬ 
tific terms can we interpret a mother's love, 
a pang of sorrow, or a sincere prayer to God? 
The best and greatest things of the soul can 
not be analyzed by laboratory methods. They 
are above the scientific method. 

Forty years of my life have been spent in 
colleges teaching various branches of science. 
Darwinism has been in vogue all of that time. 
Men are saying we make evolution the back¬ 
bone of the teaching of all our sciences. In 
what way, I pray you, is chemistry, the 
queen of all the sciences, dependent on evolu¬ 
tion? This theory has brought, and can 
bring, nothing of real value to chemistry. If 
the word “evolution” had not been heard of, 
still chemistry would be the supreme science. 
For awhile she was looked to for help to derive 
living matter from the inorganic world, but 
her failure to do this was complete, and, as 
I think, final. 

Physics deals with mass action and with 
most of the forces of nature. Many of her 
methods are known, and results can be meas¬ 
ured and weighed with exactness. Physics does 
not need the idea of evolution. Her processes 
do not depend upon it. Why talk of making 

it the guiding principle in physics? 

159 



Atheism in Our Universities 


That change has occurred everywhere as 
time has elapsed is evident, but change alone 
does not constitute evolution. The words 
“static” and “dynamic,” that are now in 
common use, do not denote accurately condi¬ 
tions of minds that exist, for all minds accept 
dynamic, in the sense that changes every¬ 
where take place. 

There are many who seem to lack the 
logical sense. They still vote for Andrew 
Jackson, as their fathers and grandfathers 
did before them. Their ignorance is to them 
bliss. The multitude follows the brass band. 

Some of the thoughtful few are being side- 
tracked on a fruitless theory that renders their 
lives largely unfruitful by paralyzing their 
moral and religious instincts. Man without 
the Christian religion fails to attain his high¬ 
est end. There is no perfect ideal to he found 
elsewhere. 

Many of the young men who have the “up- 
to-date thought,” the “scientific method,” 
and who are supposed to be free from all “re¬ 
ligious superstitions,” are made professors in 
our colleges, especially in the department of 
biology. A considerable number of these 
men are atheists, agnostics, or merely nominal 
Christians. These men teach the rising genera¬ 
tion. What crop can we expect? Christian¬ 
ity has wrestled with and defeated all the 

160 



Atheism in Our Universities 


philosophies of the past, and now she strug¬ 
gles with this newest philosophy that has 
really become a fad among men. The 
public is ignorantly supporting the men who 
are sowing the seeds of destruction among 
them. I would not sound a false alarm, 
but the time is at hand when the public 
should take notice of the effects of its own 
ignorant acts. 

“Oh, yes,” says one, “of course, in the 
readjustment that must take place in the 
minds of the young between their religious 
teaching and the prevailing views of the scien¬ 
tific world, some will lose their faith.” That 
is, accepting the theory of naturalism that 
is served up to them under the name of 
science as true, Christian religious beliefs 
will be given up so that Christian effort will 
be paralyzed or rendered negative, if 
not positively destroyed. I protest that 
much of this 11 science ” (?) is only vague 
theory. 

Professor Casteel says, in answer to Ques¬ 
tion 6: “If properly imparted, however, such 
instruction will not offend, nor will it under¬ 
mine the foundations of religion.” How can 
he reconcile this statement with his answer 
“Yes” to Question 3, which makes evolu¬ 
tion “the one universal process, the one uni¬ 
versal science”? If evolution is the one uni- 
11 161 



Atheism in Our Universities 


versal process, all things must happen as parts 
of the process. But it is evident that miracles, 
revelations, objective answers to prayer, the 
work of the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of 
the body of Christ, Pentecost, the efficiency 
of the blood of Christ, the virgin birth, 
and many other things, could not have hap¬ 
pened as a part of this scientific process. 
I have asked in vain that the teacher of 
naturalism explain how he can reconcile 
the miracles of the New Testament with his 
process. 

Professor Casteel says: “Science and re¬ 
ligion approach the question of the method of 
creation from essentially different stand¬ 
points.’ ’ And then he immediately adds: “If 
this fact is realized by the teacher and trans¬ 
mitted to his students, much mental confusion 
may be avoided.” This, to my mind, is say¬ 
ing by the teacher: “I will show you how to 
reconcile two irreconcilables. I will use much 
camouflage by covering up my meaning with 
many superfluous words that mean nothing. 
By an intellectual sleight-of-hand, I will re¬ 
move from your Christian religion all that 
you regard as supernatural, and leave you 
stranded with some kind of an unapproach¬ 
able Deity of whose attributes science knows 
nothing. I will leave you in the hands of the 

great unknown and unknowable Power.” This 

162 



Atheism in Our Universities 


is agnosticism, and, practically, atheism. (I 
use the word “science” here for the word 
“evolution.”) 

The great difficulty with evolutionists is 
that they are so anxious to make everything 
appear “scientific” that they lose sight of God 
and Christ and all revealed religion. And 
yet the Bible—God’s revealed word—has done 
more for the betterment of mankind than all 
the wonders of science. Science may make a 
fat body and a fat pocket-book, and leave a 
lean soul. There is nothing in science that 
appeals to conscience, that redeems from sin. 
Science leaves the soul in the slough of 
despond. 

Professor Casteel says: “The idea of evolu¬ 
tion should be imparted in a natural manner, 
as a logical generalization from scientific facts, 
with which students are becoming familiar.” 
This is certainly a commendable way of pre¬ 
senting the subject. With his answer to Ques¬ 
tion 3, that evolution is “the one universal 
process, the one universal science, ’ ’ let us 
apply the method. We will, according to this, 
consider it as “the one universal process.” 
Accordingly we begin with the earth before 
life appeared. At that time the only things 
that could be known were the different kinds 
of matter and the forces of nature. It is 

certain to my mind that evolution did not pre- 

163 



Atheism in Our Universities 


pare the essential elements of the right kinds 
and quantities that are absolutely necessary 
for the bodies of living things. This could 
only be done by a controlling Deity. But the 
forces of nature were present. They were at 
work on the different kinds of matter. The 
earth for a long time was losing much energy 
in the form of heat. The chemical forces 
were active, producing a great number of 
minerals. The world was not undergoing 
evolution, but simply changing. The changes 
lacked the continuity, the genetic connection 
that must exist in organic evolution. Finally, 
the earth was in a condition to support living 
things. But evolution is the sole process of 
procedure. Its only scientific factors are mat¬ 
ter and the forces of nature. These must 
produce a living organism from dead matter. 
This was spontaneous generation. All scien¬ 
tists agree that spontaneous generation has not 
been proved , and that there is no hope of 
proving it. I need not quote authorities at 
this time. 

We suppose now that the first living thing 
appears. By supposition it is a cell, a living, 
self-nourishing, self-propagating organism of 
complex structure. The production of this 
first living thing a miracle? “No!” says 
the evolutionist; “that would not be ‘scien¬ 
tific’! I must have science and the scientific 

164 



Atheism in Our Universities 


method. I don’t need God to explain this. ,, 
The result is, he does not and can not explain, 
but assumes that it has occurred. We travel 
this purely imaginary road of evolution till, 
by and by, we come to the one-celled animal 
which has feeling. Whence the feeling? We 
know no more about its origin than we know 
as to how life came. There is no conceivable 
connection between matter and force, on the 
one hand, and feeling on the other. Did not 
God perform a miracle and thus give sensation 
to the animal? “No! no!” cries the evolu- 
tionist; “that would not be scientific. We 
don’t need God!” And so he explains his 
fact of science (?) by assuming it in the usual 
way. “And how does your evolution account 
for sex in the organic world?” “It does not 
account for it; but sex is here, and we assume 
that it came by the scientific method, for there 
is no other.” “But the Bible says: ‘God 
made them male and female.’ ” “That can’t 
be true where law reigns and determines every¬ 
thing! So we go right along with our so-called 
scientific method—evolution—and we easily 
bridge the countless chasms with assumptions 
that are used as facts to help up to more as¬ 
sumptions that bridge other chasms. They 
are much easier to obtain than facts, and they 
serve equally well,” says the self-conceited 
dogmatist. 


165 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Princeton Theological Seminary, 
Princeton, N. J. 

Pres. J. Ross Stevenson. 

President Stevenson has handed these ques¬ 
tions to me to-day (Nov. 16, 1920), with a re¬ 
quest that I answer them. I shall be glad to 
answer further inquiries. 

W. Brent Greene, Jr., 
Professor of Apologetics and Christian Ethics 

in Princeton Theological Seminary. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“No. Evolution presupposes crea¬ 
tion, and is only one of many ways of the 
Creator’s operation.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“No, unless God be regarded as 
sustaining and directing these resident forces 
and acting often supernaturally; i. e., in¬ 
dependently of them.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 

that have taken place or that will take place 

166 



Atheism in Our Universities 


in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer —‘ 1 No. Divine intervention has 
played an even more important part in the 
development of the universe. ” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—‘‘Only a theory.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib- 
ted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“It is not.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the common¬ 
ly accepted teachings of the New Testament? 
In what way must this teaching be modified? 

Answer—“Such teaching will destroy, and 
has already undermined, the faith of our people 
in the living God, who ‘doeth according to 
his will in the armies of heaven and among 
the inhabitants of the earth/ It is the con¬ 
tradiction of the New Testament. No scheme 
of evolution can be accepted that does not 
(1) posit God at the start as the absolute crea¬ 
tor out of nothing of the original germs; that 
does not (2) make this God immanent in the 
whole process of evolution, sustaining it and 
directing it, and so working His will through 

167 




Atheism in Our Universities 


it and by means of it, and that does not (3) 
regard God as transcendent, and, as such, in¬ 
tervening personally, and so putting into the 
stream what was not in it before, and could 
not have come out of it; for example, Christ 
and His miracles.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“In the theological seminary of 
which Dr. Stevenson is president, evolution is 
accepted and taught as one of the ways through 
which and by which God accomplishes His 
eternal purposes.” 

The above answers are so plain that 
comment seems useless. I believe, with the 
Professor, that evolution as frequently 
taught is undermining the faith of many of 
our people. 

— —v% 

Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 

Pres. John Grier Hibben. 

(By Prof. E. G. Conklin, Professor of Biology, 
by request of President Hibben’s secretary.) 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“Not unless the word * creation’ 
is used in a sense different from that common¬ 
ly employed. Evolution is the origin of new 

168 




Atheism in Our Universities 


forms by transmutation, rather than by new 
formation. ’ ’ 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 
“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 
according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces, ’’ correct ? 

Answer—“Yes, except that the changes 
are not always continuous nor always pro¬ 
gressive. ’ ’ 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“Yes, the same fundamental proc¬ 
esses are everywhere involved. Evolution is 
transformation by new combination of units 
or elements, whether in chemistry or biology.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer —‘ 1 Many phases of evolution are 
demonstrable, others are only theoretical.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“Evolution does not directly bear 

on any of the miracles, but science and scien- 

169 




Atheism in Our Universities 


tific laws do make improbable all supernatural- 

• j y 

ism. 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teachings of the New Testa¬ 
ment ? In what way must this teaching be 
modified ? 

Answer—“Science, rather than evolution, 
teaches the universality of natural laws. The 
teachings of the New Testament are chiefly 
ethical. It is the best code of ethics extant, 
and should be taught from this standpoint, 
rather than as a text-book of science.’’ 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are professor of biology? 

Answer—“It is fully accepted and freely 
taught to all students in the Department of 
Biology.” 

It is evident that the evolution which Pro¬ 
fessor Conklin accepts eliminates miracles 
and all “supernaturalism.” That “science” 
“teaches the universality of natural laws,” in 
the sense in which he evidently means it, is 
not at all apparent to my mind. To the minds 
of most of those who make this statement the 
course of events is fixed; they run in grooves, 
with no hope of getting out; they represent 

170 



Atheism in Our Universities 


the process of determinism, that eliminates 
free will and destroys all moral responsibility. 
When we speak of the universality of law, we 
are likely not to include the action of free 
mind. The blind forces of nature would, and 
could, produce only certain fixed and invari¬ 
able results. Mind so directs and controls the 
action of these blind forces that they do work 
that could not be done without it. We are 
accustomed to say that these forces act accord¬ 
ing to law; but it is perfectly evident that they 
are not acting in the same way when con¬ 
trolled that they do when not so controlled. 
The production by a falling weight, when 
controlled by mind, of light, heat, electricity, 
magnetism, chemical force, mechanical motion, 
to which I have before referred, is an example. 
With mind in control, the results of a given 
amount of force are not predetermined in the 
sense in which they are in the inorganic world. 
There is no reign of law that determines any 
definite results which a given force will accom¬ 
plish under the control of mind. 

The Professor states in Question 5 that 
“science and scientific laws do make improbable 
all supernaturalism. ” I do not see how any 
laws of science in any way conflict with super¬ 
naturalism. Some theories that men claim may 
conflict with the supernatural. True science 

can not conflict with true religion, for God is 

171 



Atheism in Our Universities 


tli author of both. We can not know that 
God limits His work to the method of natural¬ 
ism. Is it not possible that an infinite Mind 
can do things in ways unknown to man? 

The question of the supernatural is one of 
evidence, but when we arbitrarily claim, 
as some do, that evolution, the scientific 
method, is universal, we at once eliminate 
the supernatural, and deny that any evidence 
can be offered in its support. This is not the 
logic of true science. Science is open to proof 
from all directions. 

Professor Conklin applies the word “evo¬ 
lution” to chemistry and biology as if the 
two were on a similar basis. Chemistry in¬ 
volves the action of the free human mind, 
and it does not, and can not, include the 
continuity that must always prevail in 
biology. The word “evolution” can not be 
applied to chemistry in the biological sense. 


Boston University, Boston, Mass. 
Pres. Lemuel H. Murlin. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“No. Evolution is a theory as 
to a method of creation.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 

“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 

172 




Atheism in Our Universities 


according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“This is a fairly good descriptive 
answer, if by ‘resident forces’ is meant forces 
that were made resident by ‘some other 
power’ than that of the being in which the 
changes were made.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, in¬ 
cluding all material and psychological changes 
that have taken place or that will take place 
in the future? In other words, is it not the 
one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“In the main, I think you have 
given a very good answer, provided that proc¬ 
ess is made possible by ‘a power not our¬ 
selves,’ which the ‘theistic evolutionist’ says 
is ‘a personal power’; namely, God.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“A theory.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“I should say that what we com¬ 
monly call theistic evolution is entirely con¬ 
sistent with the teachings and words of Christ 

as given in the New Testament.” 

173 



Atheism in Our Universities 


6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching in our 
public schools on the commonly accepted teach¬ 
ing of the New Testament? In what way must 
this teaching be modified? 

Answer—“To answer this question we would 
have to define very carefully what is meant 
by ‘evolution’' and what is meant by ‘com¬ 
monly accepted teachings of’ on the one 
hand and ‘the New Testament’ on the other. 
A proper definition of these two involves no 
conflict, and they are helpful to each other.” 

6. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—‘ ‘ The doctrine of theistic evolu¬ 
tion is generally accepted as the most satisfac¬ 
tory hypothesis of the method of creation and 
development of the world.” 


174 



X. 


LETTERS AND ANSWERS TO 
QUESTIONS 

Dean Franklin N. Parker, Candler School 
of Theology, Emory University; Pres. 
C. A. Barbour, Rochester Theological 
Seminary; Pres. Henry C. King, Oberlin 
College ; Pres. W. 0. Thompson, Ohio 
State University. 

Emory University. 

Candler School of Theology. 

Atlanta, Ga., Sept. 15, 1920. 
Dear Professor Fair hurst: 

Your letter of inquiry regarding the sub¬ 
ject of the status of Darwinism, or the doc¬ 
trine of the subject of evolution, in Emory 
University received. 

I am not in a position to give you any 
exact information on this matter, as I have 
never canvassed the question with the pro¬ 
fessors in Emory University as such. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 

the science of creation” correct? 

175 


Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“I have to plead ignorance in 
regard to Cope’s statement concerning evolu¬ 
tion as the science of creation. I have not 
read this statement. I am familiar with 
Bergson’s philosophic viewpoint and do not 
consider that it is adequate, as it lacks the 
definiteness that comes from a clear view of 
the personality of God.” 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolu¬ 
tion “is (1) continuous progressive change, 
(2) according to fixed laws, (3) and by 
means of resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“I consider Le Conte’s defini¬ 
tion, as you state it, insufficient. I do not 
think that the term “resident forces” covers 
the factors involved in history. In other 
words, I believe that there is the action 
of an immanent God necessary in the uni¬ 
verse. ’ ’ 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world, and flowing 
as a continuous stream through the ages, 
including all material and psychological 
changes that have taken place or that will 
take place in the future? In other words, is 
it not the one universal process? The one 
universal science? 

Answer—“It seems to me that some form 
of development is characteristic throughout 

the realm of nature, but I think there are a 

176 



Atheism in Our Universities 


number of problems in connection with this 
viewpoint that have not been solved.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“I think evolution should be 
considered in the light of a theory or hypoth¬ 
esis. ’ ’ 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly at¬ 
tributed to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“The scientific doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion, as stated by some evolutionists, is not 
consistent with the idea of miracles attributed 
to Christ in the New Testament. For ex¬ 
ample, if the sources of life and power are 
due entirely to resident forces in the realm 
of nature, we have no means of accounting 
for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, as the 
event is described in the New Testament.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of 
evolution in our public schools on the com¬ 
monly accepted teachings of the New Testa¬ 
ment? In what way must this teaching be 
modified? 

Answer—“Any doctrine of development 
that leaves God out is, in my judgment, per¬ 
nicious. I think there is such a thing as a 
type of theistic evolution which can be held 
by Christian men. Examples of this can be 
12 177 



Atheism in Our Universities 


seen in men like Professor Drummond, and I 
have known a number of Christian men who 
were theistic evolutionists, who seemed to 
find that they could harmonize the doctrine 
of development with their Christian think¬ 
ing and Christian experience.” 

7. To what extent is the doctrine of evo¬ 
lution accepted and taught in the university 
of which you are president? 

Answer—“I can not tell you the extent 
to which the doctrine of evolution is accepted 
and taught in the university. I have never 
canvassed this matter as a general thing. I 
know that some of the men hold to the view 
of theistic evolution, but I have arrived at 
this knowledge by a merely incidental con¬ 
versation on scientific subjects. I could not 
answer your question without interviewing 
or sending out a questionnaire. 

“Permit me to make a correction in regard 
to the matter of the presidency of the uni¬ 
versity. I have been acting president, having 
declined the chancellorship and the presi¬ 
dency, as I prefer to hold my position as dean 
of the School of Theology. Bishop Candler 
is now chancellor of the university, and Dr. 
H. W. Cox is now holding the position of 
president under Bishop Candler.” 

Yours sincerely, 

Franklin N. Parker, Dean. 

178 



Atheism in Our Universities 


That changes have taken place, both in the 
dead and the living world, through the long 
ages of the earth’s history, no one informed 
doubts. If these changes are evolution, then 
all are evolutionists. 


Oberlin College, 

Oberlin, 0. 

My Bear Professor Fairhurst: 

It is pretty difficult to express oneself very 
satisfactorily on a subject like evolution 
through a questionnaire, though I am enclos¬ 
ing my answers to the questionnaire as a kind 
of supplementary statement. 

My own views of the relation of Christian¬ 
ity to evolution are contained in three chap¬ 
ters of my “Reconstruction in Theology,” 
published by the Macmillan Company: Chap¬ 
ters V., VI. and VII. The subjects of these 
three chapters are “Scientific Influences,” 
“Miracles in the Light of Modern Science” and 
“The Special Bearing of Evolution.” 

Very sincerely yours, 

Henry C. King, Pres. 

1. Is Cope’s statement that “evolution is 
the science of creation” correct? 

Answer—“It might be said to be loosely 
true.’ 9 

2. Is Le Conte’s definition that evolution 

“is (1) continuous, progressive change, (2) 

179 




Atheism in Our Universities 


according to fixed laws, (3) and by means of 
resident forces,” correct? 

Answer—“In general. It should be held in 
mind, however, that there may be degeneration 
as well as progress under evolution.” 

3. Is not evolution a universal process, 
beginning in the inorganic world and flowing, 
as a continuous stream, through the ages, 
including all material and psychological 
changes that have taken place or that will take 
place in the future ? In other words, is it 
not the one universal process, the one universal 
science ? 

Answer—“Yes, if the term is used very 
broadly.” 

4. Is evolution to be regarded as a science 
or only a theory? 

Answer—“I should call it a theory.” 

5. Is the scientific doctrine of evolution 
consistent with the miracles commonly attrib¬ 
uted to Christ in the New Testament? 

Answer—“Yes, so far as miracles are con¬ 
ceived as occurring under law.” 

6. What, in your opinion, has been, and 
what will be, the effect of the teaching of evolu¬ 
tion in our public schools on the commonly 
accepted teachings of the New Testament? In 
what way must this teaching be modified? 

Answer—“See 5. The essential values of 

the New Testament are unaffected.” 

180 



Atheism in Our Universities 


7. To what extent is the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion accepted and taught in the university of 
which you are president? 

Answer—“Quite universally I suppose, but 
not materialistically interpreted. ’ ’ 

Henry C. King, Pres. 

The Ohio State University. 

W. C. Thompson, President. 

My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

I have your letter of the 7th. Permit me 
to say that I am not competent to make reply 
to your communication. My personal opinions 
would not have any great value in the case. 
It has seemed to me that the only way a satis¬ 
factory answer for one’s own mind can be 
secured on such problems as you propose, is 
to make an investigation of the literature in 
the case and reach one’s own conclusion. My 
own reading intimates to me that definitions 
such as you refer to in Question No. 2 are 
always subject to criticism by men who are 
in substantial agreement with the man who 
makes the definition. Each man writes himself 
out in accordance with his oV n thinking, and 
probably makes some small contribution to 
the situation. You will find, in a recent 
number of the Atlantic Monthly f an article 

on “Darwinism,” by John Burroughs, which, 

181 




Atheism in Our Universities 


to me, is one of the most enlightening and 
stimulating articles I have read for a long 
time. 

Under these conditions, I should not be 
able to state to what extent the doctrine of 
evolution is accepted among the scholars of the 
country, or to what extent it is taught. I 
should probably make a general statement that 
in some form the doctrine of evolution is 
accepted by practically all the scholars of the 
country, but that would be unsatisfactory as 
a statement and would not meet the purpose 
of your questionnaire. I could not offer any 
objection on No. 6. On Question No. 5, a 
great many of the best Christian theological 
scholars of the country would answer yes; 
others would answer with some modification. 
I do not believe, therefore, that a reply to 
such a questionnaire has any practical signifi¬ 
cance or value. 

Your very truly, 

W. C. Thompson, Pres. 

Rochester Theological Seminary. 

Office of the President. 

Rochester, N. Y., Sept. 10, 1920. 

My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

I have your questionnaire regarding evolu¬ 
tion. Rather than to answer in detail the 

182 




Atheism in Our Universities 


questions which you ask, I prefer to state the 
position of the members of the Faculty in the 
Rochester Theological Seminary. I think that 
I am not misrepresenting any one of them in 
so doing. So far as I know, in their thinking 
and their teaching all of the members of the 
Faculty accept the philosophy of evolution, 
if you define evolution as a continuous chain 
of causation, a part of which causation are 
the conscious and purposeful acts of the 
living God where in His infinite wisdom and 
love there is call for His immediate interven¬ 
tion. 

We do not accept a merely materialistic 
evolution. Behind sequence and behind age¬ 
long development there is an originating and 
controlling Mind, and matter is without mean¬ 
ing apart from spirit. So far as I know, we 
all accept the sublime message of God’s 
sovereignty in creation, and we certainly do 
not reject the miraculous element in the Bible 
as unhistorical. 

A theory of materialistic evolution, wher¬ 
ever it is taught, is disastrous, and unspeak¬ 
ably so. I am afraid that such a theory is 
taught in some institutions of learning. I 
believe that a true theory of evolution can be 
made consistent with the historicity at least 
of some of the miracles recorded in the Scrip¬ 
tures. I myself am much more concerned with 

183 




Atheism in Our Universities 


the religious or spiritual truths contained in 
Scripture, than I am in the continual discus¬ 
sion of the conflict or the agreement between 
science and religion. For me, and I am sure 
for us all, the living Christ is the center of 
our thinking, and, I humbly trust, of our 
lives. C, A, Barbour, Pres. 


184 



XI. 


OTHER LETTERS AND ANSWERS 


From State Superintendents of Public In¬ 
struction and Others. 

B EFORE sending the foregoing question¬ 
naire to the presidents of the various uni¬ 
versities, I sent a list of questions to a con¬ 
siderable number of superintendents of public 
instruction of some of the leading States. The 
following explains itself: 

California State Board of Education. 


Office of 


Commissioner 

Schools. 


of Secondary 


May 27, 1920. 


Dear Sir: 

Enclosed is a questionnaire filled out in 
pencil. It was directed to the Superintendent 
of Public Instruction some time ago, and it 
was referred by him to me. 

I hope this information will not reach you 
too late to be of service to you. 

Very truly yours, 

A. C. Olney, Commissioner. 

185 


Atheism in Our Universities 


The Letter and Mr. Olney’s Answers. 

Superintendent of Public Instruction of 
California : 

Dear Sir —My inquiry is to obtain informa¬ 
tion as to the extent to which the Darwinian 
theory, or any other theory of evolution, is be¬ 
ing taught by authority or permission in the 
schools under your supervision. In what 
schools, if any, is the Darwinian theory, or 
any other theory, of evolution taught? 

Answer—‘ ‘ High schools. ’ ’ 

Do any of the subjects that are in any 
course, or courses, prescribed by the State, 
presuppose a knowledge and acceptance of 
the Darwinian, or any other, theory of evolu¬ 
tion? If yes, what? 

Answer—“No particular courses required 
by the State.” 

If teachers are not required to teach this 
doctrine, is there any objection to their teach¬ 
ing it? 

Answer—“No.” 

What texts are recommended for teaching 
evolution in the schools? 

Answer—“We recommended no particular 
list of texts. Under separate cover is a list of 
texts that may be adopted.” 

Is not evolution regarded as established 
science by those who teach it? 

186 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Answer—“Yes.” 

Do you have jurisdiction over the Normal 
schools ? 

Answer—“Yes; State Board of Education 
has. ’ ’ 

Has any objection been offered by any 
patrons of schools in which evolution has been 
taught, to the teaching of the subject in these 
schools ? 

Answer—“I know of none.” 

Do you think that practically all the col¬ 
leges and universities of the State accept and 
teach the theory of evolution? 

Answer—‘ ‘ Yes, certainly. ’ ’ 

I am trying to obtain reliable informa¬ 
tion as to the status of this subject in our 
educational systems. 

Yours very truly, 

A. Fairhurst. 

Commissioner Olney thinks that “yes, cer¬ 
tainly,” the colleges and universities of Cali¬ 
fornia accept and teach the doctrine of evolu¬ 
tion. He also states that it is commonly taught 
in the “high schools.” He says that “under 
separate cover is a list of texts that may be 
adopted,” on the subject of evolution. I did 
not get this. 

The most surprising answer in the list is, 

perhaps, the answer “yes” to the question, 

187 



Atheism in Our Universities 


“Is not evolution regarded as established 
science by those who teach it?” The answer 
of most of the presidents of colleges and uni¬ 
versities is that evolution is only a theory 
or hypothesis. The public is being deceived 
by being made to believe that this theory 
is an important branch of established sci¬ 
ence. And then the teaching of it is made 
to take the place of important practical 
sciences that might well be taught in high 
schools. 


State of Michigan. 

Department of Public Instruction. 

My Dear Professor Fairhurst: 

I have your inquiry of the 27th. I am a 
little surprised at the inquiry as I have never 
heard the matter raised. We do not teach 
evolution as a separate subject in any of 
the schools, but it is taught as a part of all 
science, and I had supposed was universally 
accepted. 

We have no text-book on the subject, but 
I suppose it is rarely that a teacher of biology 
does not mention it. I have no personal juris¬ 
diction over the Normal schools, except in my 
capacity as a member of the State Board of 
Education. [Here follow the names of presi¬ 
dents of the four Normal schools.] As far as 

188 




Atheism in Our Universities 


I know, all the colleges and the university 
accept some form of evolutionary theory. 

Very truly yours, 

T. E. Johnson, Supt. 


State of Illinois. 

Department of Public Instruction. 

Springfield, Apr. 19, 1920. 
Dear Mr. Fairhurst: 

The laws of Illinois require that certain 
subjects shall be taught in the public schools, 
but there has never been any attempt to say 
to school authorities what they shall not teach. 
High schools, colleges and Normal schools are 
left free to use their own judgment as to 
what they shall say about evolution. 

I am sending you under separate cover a 
copy of the educational directory of Illinois. 

Yours sincerely, 

F. G. Blair, Supt. 


State of Indiana. 

State Department of Public Instruction. 

_ Indianapolis, Apr. 23, 1920. 

Dear Sir: 

Your letter of recent date was duly re¬ 
ceived. In reply will say that the matter of 
teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution 

has not come to my attention for some time. 

189 





Atheism in Our Universities 


It does not seem to be a topic that is attract¬ 
ing special attention or causing unusual dis¬ 
cussion in our State at present. So far as I 
know, the theory of Darwin is generally ac¬ 
cepted. However, in order that you may con¬ 
duct an investigation throughout the State, 
as seems best to you, I am sending you, under 
another cover, a copy of our State directory. 
In it you will find the names of all the col¬ 
lege and public-school officials in Indiana. I 
am also sending you a copy of our high-school 
course of study. From it you can get some 
information as to just what we are doing in 
a scientific way in our high schools. 

If we can serve you further, please let us 
know. Very truly, 

L. N. Hines, State Supt. 


The University of the State of New York. 

The State Department of Education. 

Dear Sir • Albany, Apr. 21, 1920. 

Your questionnaire of April 15th regard¬ 
ing the theory of evolution is before us. 

I regret that we have no definite data con¬ 
cerning the teaching of the theory of evolu¬ 
tion in the schools of this State. No positive 
answers to your questions could be given with¬ 
out sending out to each of the State schools 
for a report. All that I can give you in the 

190 




Atheism in Our Universities 


way of reply would be simply impressions, 
which may or may not be correct. 

It is my general impression that the theory 
of evolution is accepted and taught in prac¬ 
tically all of the schools and colleges of this 
State, but possibly not exactly in the form in 
which Darwin presented it, but in the general 
conception that the higher forms are evolved 
from the lower forms in some way. 

I have known of a few cases in which 
objection has been made to the teaching, but 
I think the objection has not been taken 
seriously. Very truly yours, 

Chas. F. Wheelock, 

Assistant Commissioner for Secondary Educa¬ 
tion. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 

Department of Education, State House. 

Division of Elementary and Secondary 
Education and Normal Schools. 

_ Boston, May 6, 1920. 

Dear Sir: 

Your inquiry relating to the teaching of 
the Darwinian theory, or any other theory, of 
evolution in the schools of this State has been 
referred to me. 

The cities and towns of Massachusetts are 

not prohibited by law from teaching such a 

191 




Atheism in Our Universities 


theory. The superintendent of the schools of 
Boston reports that the Darwinian theory is 
not taught in the public schools of Boston. I 
regret to state that we have no information 
with regard to the practice in the other 
schools of the Commonwealth. 

Under separate cover, I am sending you an 
educational directory, which will give you the 
names of the superintendents of the schools in 
this State. Very truly yours, 

Robert I. Bramball. 


Western Illinois State Normal School. 

Office of the President. 

nr -n • Apr. 30, 1920. 

My Dear Sir: 

The letter which you addressed to D. P. 
Hollis has fallen into my hands to be answered, 
because I am the president of the Western 
Illinois State Normal. 

I wish to say that if you mean by Dar¬ 
winism that man’s forefather was an ape, we 
are not resting any of our Normal School 
courses on that theory. We are, however, 
very largely dependent upon the general 
theory of evolution in all our scientific courses 
and also in our social sciences. I think every 
modern educational institution in the United 
States accepts the general theory of evolu¬ 
tion. My impression is that they do not 

192 





Atheism in Our Universities 


count it a science, but rather look upon it as 
a world theory which they are willing to ac¬ 
cept. The general meaning of evolution which 
we accept is that the world as it is to-day is a 
development of the condition in which it was 
found thousands and thousands of years ago, 
and that society is an outgrowth of the true 
condition in which it was found in ancient 
times. I think this is about all that need be 
said about the matter. 

Yours very truly, 

W. P. Morgan, Pres. 


Eastern Kentucky State Normal School. 

Richmond, Apr. 20, 1920. 

Dear Sir: 

Replying briefly to your letter, I will 
state that in the four years that I have been 
in this school, I have never heard the word 
* * Darwinism” mentioned on this campus. If 
the subject has ever been mentioned in a class, 
I have never heard of it. This is a Normal 
school, and we are engaged in the problem of 
training teachers to teach school, and not 
concerning ourselves about such subjects as 
you have mentioned. 

We have a library of something like ten 
thousand volumes, and I have not the time 

nor the inclimation to hunt up the names and 

193 


13 






Atheism in Our Universities 


authors that might deal incidentally with 
evolution. 

I hope that this reply will be satisfactory 
to you. Very truly yours, 

T. J. Coates, Pres. 

The last two writers evidently need to be 
brought into harmony as to their methods of 
training teachers. President Morgan could 
not teach the sciences and sociology without 
the aid of evolution, while President Coates, 
it seems, entirely ignores the subject. 

It may be that the mental makeup of the 
students in the two regions will explain it. If 
President Coates will only get this theory on 
wheels in his school, he may witness a marvel¬ 
ous awakening among his students. 

Personally, I may say that in my ex¬ 
perience of forty years in teaching the various 
sciences of a college course I never felt the 
necessity of calling to my aid the Darwinian 
or any other theory of evolution, nor do I 
believe that it is necessary to do so at present. 
Its advantages are imaginary. 

The fact is, I think, as I have claimed, 
that evolution could not take place where re¬ 
sults are due to the workings of free intellect, 
for the reason that there can he no genetic 
continuity. This applies to human achieve¬ 
ments in all fields. 


194 



Atheism in Our Universities 


President Morgan is evidently referring in 
his definition to the changes and the progress 
that have taken place during the long geo¬ 
logical and historical past. All changes of all 
kinds can not, with any propriety, be in¬ 
cluded in the word “evolution ’’ in the Dar¬ 
winian sense. 


14 


195 



XII. ' 


SOME CONCLUSIONS. 

I N preceding articles I have claimed that man 
is a free moral agent, and that, as such, he 
is not, and can not be, under the absolute 
dominion of physical force. Free mind domi¬ 
nates the forces of nature, and thus brings 
about innumerable results that could not other¬ 
wise be accomplished. These results are pro¬ 
duced mostly by changing one force into 
another and by overcoming force by means of 
force. Everywhere in nature results are 
brought about by conflict of forces. An in¬ 
finite God, by controlling forces that are 
known, and possibly by others that are un¬ 
known, to man, may bring about results that 
we call supernatural, by means of conflicting 
forces, as man does, but without * ‘ violating 9 ’ 
the “laws of nature.” I have explained that 
“laws of nature” are the methods according 
to which forces act, and that these methods 
may be determined by free mind, both of man 
and God. It is easv to believe that God has a 
larger controlling power than man. I have 

196 


Atheism in Our Universities 


also claimed that the laws of nature are benef¬ 
icent and necessary for the existence and 
welfare of man. 

Again, I have insisted that the simple sub¬ 
stances present in the world that are necessary 
components of the bodies of all living things, 
and the presence of a large number of elements 
that are useful to civilized man, and the 
preparation of a vast number of things con¬ 
ducive to man’s physical and spiritual wel¬ 
fare, declare in an unmistakable way the 
existence of a wise and beneficent Creator, 
who was looking forward through the ages to 
the coming of man. 

The existence also of the forces of nature 
in such forms and quantities as to be most use¬ 
ful to living things speaks of a beneficent 
God. All this could not be purely accidental. 
The presence of the right kinds and quantities 
of matter and forces is entirely beyond the 
process of evolution. 

If intelligent purpose must be assumed for 
a beginning, it is evident that the time would 
never arrive when purpose would be unneces¬ 
sary. If God began it, then God is all the way 
through the ages. 

I have also endeavored to show that 
“scientific evolution,” based on “matter, mo¬ 
tion and force,” which, by assumption, were 

the only things present before life appeared, 

197 



Atheism in Our Universities 


utterly fail to account for the present and 
past condition of things in the world. 

That “life comes only from life" is a 
known fact, which has been accepted as a fact, 
That life can come from death, all experi¬ 
ments and observations fail to prove. Some 
evolutionists are still groping for a living 
organism whose parent is the mineral world, 
but they look in vain. Without a first living 
thing born of the mineral world, evolution 
has no beginning. All along the assumed line 
of evolution from “monkey to man” the proc¬ 
ess is bridged with assumption instead of 
facts. 

“Matter, motion and force” not only fail 
to produce spontaneous generation, but they 
utterly fail to explain the existence of any 
psychological power whatever. Feelings of 
many kinds, numerous instincts and the 
faculties of the human mind are, admit¬ 
tedly, not to be accounted for by these factors 
alone. 

From the answers to my questionnaire, it 
is evident that those who have answered en¬ 
tertain different views as to the meaning of the 
word “evolution.” 

Some include in the word “evolution” all 
the changes that have taken place in time. 
As I have already stated, all people accept 

the idea of changes from the beginning till 

198 



Atheism in Our Universities 


now, but these changes can not all be included 
in the word ‘ ‘ evolution. ” 

Others apply the word indiscriminately to 
all branches in a college curriculum. This is 
plainly inadmissible. Progress, however, has 
taken place in every subject. 

Again, some limit the use of the word to 
biology and history. I have claimed that this 
is a wrong use of the word. Zoology demands 
genetic continuity, but this is not possible in 
any subject that is due to the action of free 
mind. 

Few, if any, confine the use of the word 
strictly to ‘ ‘ organic evolution, ’ ’ to which it 
especially belongs. 

The use of the word “evolution” with re¬ 
gard to the organic world was soon enlarged 
by Herbert Spencer and others, and more re¬ 
cently by Profs. H. W. Conn and H. F. 
Osborn, and many other evolutionists, so as 
to make the process universal. Its only data 
were “matter, motion and force.” These were 
the only factors with which to account for all 
the changes in the physical and psychological 
worlds. With these as the only factors, a 
philosophy of creation has been constructed 
known as naturalism—a false philosophy, 
which dispenses with God and all that the 
Christian regards as supernatural. This theory 

is rooted and grounded in many of our higher 

199 



Atheism in Our Universities 


institutions of learning, and is taught by men 
who are protected under the plea of “ aca¬ 
demic liberty/’ and who are often being paid 
for their work out of the public treasury. 
This so-called scientific method is wi'ecking the 
Christian faith and destroying the usefulness 
of multitudes of young men and women. It 
is against this view of evolution that I call 
particular attention. That this condition ex¬ 
ists, I am sure that no one who knows the 
facts will deny. 

I sound no false alarm. Professor Le 
Conte said: 11 There can be no doubt that there 
is at present a strong, and, to many, an over¬ 
whelming, tendency toward materialism. . . . 
Materialism has become a fashion of thought; 
and, like all fashions, must be guarded against. 
This tendency has been created, and is now 
guided, by science. Just at this time it is the 
strongest in the department of biology, and 
especially is evolution its stronghold.” 

Pres. C. A. Barbour, of Rochester Theo¬ 
logical Seminary, recently wrote: “A theory 
of materialistic evolution, wherever it is 
taught, is disastrous, and unspeakably so. I 
am afraid that such a theory of evolution is 
taught in some institutions of learning.” 

Prof. W. Brent Greene, of Princeton Theo¬ 
logical Seminary, writes of the teaching of 

evolution: “Such teaching will destroy, and 

200 ' 



Atheism in Our Universities 


has already undermined, the faith of our 
people in the living God.” 

Le Conte says: “The day is past when 
skepticism sneered and derided the Scriptures 
and Christianity and Christ. On the contrary, 
it is now respectful, and apparently friendly, 
and even patronizing. The old skepticism was 
an open enemy; the new skepticism is the 
false friend. It approaches with the utmost 
politeness, inquiring, ‘Art thou in health, my 
brother V and then it smites under the fifth 
rib! It says of the Scriptures that it is the 
noblest of human productions; full of the most 
glowing poetry; the simplest, yet the sublim- 
est, narratives; the divinest system of morals. 
It says of Christ that He is the greatest of all 
reformers, the greatest and purest of all human 
characters. It says of Christianity that it is 
the noblest of all institutions, but that it is 
human, and, like all things human, it must 
pass away, and is, indeed, now passing away. 

“Their mode of reasoning is ingenious; it 
is this: All things are relative, and therefore 
transitory; every system of doctrine is true, 
and can be true, only relatively; that is, for 
us in our present state of advance: every in¬ 
stitution is good or bad only relatively; that 
is, for us in our particular stage of civiliza¬ 
tion, and, therefore, every system of doctrine 

and every institution is necessarily only sub- 

201 



Atheism in Our Universities 


servient to the progress of humanity; and, 
having subserved that purpose, it must pass 
away; having run its cycle, it becomes useless, 
and is cast off like a worn-out garment, and 
makes way for some higher system or institu¬ 
tion, etc. 

“Have we indeed reached the Christian 
ideal, and do we already see another and a 
higher? What is the Christian ideal of moral¬ 
ity? It is supreme love of supreme perfec¬ 
tion, the perfect love of the absolute ideal, and 
love to our fellow-men equal to that given to 
ourselves. What is the Christian ideal of 
character? It is that which is presented to us 
in the life and character of the divine Master. 
Have these ideals, then, been already left 
behind, and do we see another and higher? 
On the contrary, it is not only yet unattained, 
but absolutely unattainable. Even the skep¬ 
tic must admit this. It is an absolute, not a 
relative, ideal; it is impossible for the human 
mind even to conceive a higher. An absolute 
ideal! What is this but a divine ideal? . . . 
But the ideals of Christianity, the truths of 
Christianity—these are not human, but divine; 
are not fleeting, but eternal.” 

Again, he says: “I have already said that 
nature cultivates primarily the intellect, while 
Scripture cultivates primarily the moral 

nature of man. Now, it is his moral nature 

202 



Atheism in Our Universities 


which is the distinctive characteristic of man; 
this it is which is the very essence of human¬ 
ity. Without this we might regard him only 
as an intelligent animal.” 

Again: “Do you not observe, then, that 
in all these subjects—subjects which are the 
most closely connected with our highest in¬ 
terests—the perception of truth depends not 
so much on the vigor and clearness of the 
intellect as it does upon the purity of the 
heart ?” 

Concerning the first chapter of Genesis, 
he says: “By far the grandest interpreta¬ 
tion of this chapter is that which makes the 
creative days great periods of time. It is not 
only, however, the grandest, but is also by 
far the most accordant, both with the teach¬ 
ings of nature and the teachings of the Scrip¬ 
ture, and therefore the most rational. That 
it is accordant with the teachings of nature 
is admitted by all; but many will perhaps 
doubt its accordance with the general teach¬ 
ings of Scripture—many regard it as a con¬ 
struction forced upon us by nature. I can 
not think so. For, observe, the word ‘day’ is 
often used, both in Scripture and in common 
language, to mean an indefinite period of time. 
Observe, second, that in the poetry of the 
Scriptures it is nearly always used in this 

indefinite sense. Observe, third, that in 

203 



Atheism in Our Universities 


prophecy it is always used in that sense. In 
other words, in subjects that lie within the 
limits of our human experience, the word 
‘day’ is used in Scripture in its usual significa¬ 
tion of a period of twenty-four hours; but in 
every case in which the subject is one which 
transcends human experience, it is used as an 
indefinite . period of time.” 

Also: “The order of creation revealed in 
the Scripture is the order of the evolution of 
the material universe and of the organic king¬ 
dom revealed in nature. Is this genius? If 
it is genius, it is a genius that has anticipated 
the latest results of science.” 

In the “Origin of the World,” by Sir 
William Dawson, of McGill University, Can¬ 
ada, one of the highest authorities in geology, 
the author of many books and a recognized 
leader in the world’s thought, he defends 
the Mosaic account of creation, the inspiration 
of the Bible and the creation of man as set 
forth in Genesis. He says: “Man was created, 
as the Hebrew literally reads, the shadow and 
similitude of God—the greatest of the visible 
manifestations of Deity in the lower world, the 
reflected image of his Maker, and, under the 
supreme Lawgiver, the delegated ruler of 
the earth.” 

Again: “Science can not successfully long 
isolate itself from God.” 

204 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Concerning geology lie says: “Geology as 
a science is at present in a peculiar and some¬ 
what exceptional state. Under the influence 
of a few men of commanding genius belonging 
to the generation now passing away, it has 
made so gigantic conquests that its armies have 
broken up into bands of specialists, little bet¬ 
ter than scientific banditti, liable to be beaten 
in detail, and prone to commit outrages on 
common sense and good taste, which bring 
their otherwise good cause into disrepute. The 
leaders of these bands are, many of them, good 
soldiers, but few of them fitted to be general 
officers, and none of them able to reunite our 
scattered detachments. We need larger minds, 
of broader culture and wider sympathies, to 
organize and rule the lands which we have 
subdued and to lead on to further conquests. 

4 ‘The only remedy in the case is a higher 
and more general scientific education; and 
yet I do not wonder that many good men 
object to this, simply because of the difficulty 
of finding honest and competent teachers, 
themselves well grounded in their subjects, and 
free from that common insanity of specialists 
and self-educated men which impels them to 
run amuck at everything- that does not depend 
on their own methods of research. ” 

The above remarks with regard to the 

shortcomings of the specialist are timely. 

205 




Atheism in Our Universities 


This is an age of specialists. In biology they 
are still slicing incipient chicks and dilating 
upon the wonders of gnats’ toenails, hoping 
thereby to prognosticate the course of the uni¬ 
verse. The ideas of many of them are as 
limited as the drop of water in which billions 
of microbes float. It would be as possible for 
one of these microbes to comprehend the 
course of events as it would be for one of 
these specialists, who has no general view of 
the order of things. I certainly do not belittle 
the microscope, but I do belittle the biped 
who makes of himself nothing but a microscope. 
A human telescope, if we must choose, would 
be better. 

It is evident from answers to my question¬ 
naire that quite a number of those in chief 
places eliminate miracles and all that is super¬ 
natural, in the Christian sense, from the New 
Testament, and accept only the ethical part 
of Christ’s teaching. This is a rejection of 
the Bible as a book of authority in religion. 

With faith thus destroyed, all religious 
ordinances and worship rest upon no founda¬ 
tion except human authority. 

Professor Le Conte well says: “I do be¬ 
lieve that we can not do a man a greater and 
more irreparable injury than to unsettle in 
any way his religious faith. Faith is the 

very foundation of all noble activity.’’ 

206 



Atheism in Our Universities 


Kant says: ‘ ‘ There is a limit where the 
intellect fails and breaks down, and this limit 
is where the questions concerning God and 
freedom and immortality arise.'' 

Goethe says: “Epochs of faith are epochs 
of fruitfulness; but epochs of unbelief, how¬ 
ever glittering, are barren of all permanent 
good." 

Bacon says: “There never was found, in 
any age of the world, either philosopher or 
sect or law or discipline which did so highly 
exalt the public good as the Christian faith." 

F. W. Robertson says: “To believe is to 
be strong. Doubt cramps energy. Belief is 
power. ' ' 

Darwin’s son, in writing of his father, 
says: “There is natural law, physical law, and 
Mr. Darwin would have no other. . . . Un¬ 
designed variability means to Mr. Darwin only 
accident and chance. ... To Newton there 
might be a God who created the things them¬ 
selves, but to Darwin neither the one nor the 
other was a need." 

Professor Conn says: “The greatest 
strength of the ‘law of natural selection' has 
been a substitute of ‘natural law’ for super¬ 
natural intelligence.'' 

Henry F. Osborn says: “Chance is the 
very essence of the original Darwinian selec¬ 
tion hypothesis of evolution." 

207 



Atheism in Our Universities 


In “The Descent of Man” (Vol. II., p. 
378), Mr. Darwin does not seem to agree with 
the above views when he says: ‘ 1 The birth both 
of the species and of the individual are equal¬ 
ly parts of that grand sequence of events 
which our minds refuse to accept as the re¬ 
sults of blind chance. The understanding re¬ 
volts at such a conclusion.” 

If we can not consider the events “as the 
results of blind chance,” at which the “under¬ 
standing revolts,” we must accept the only 
other alternative as his opinion, which is the 
design of an intelligent creation. Mr. Dar¬ 
win’s statement, coming at the conclusion of 
his long labor on organic evolution, repre¬ 
sents his final and most mature opinion as to 
the cause of creation. 

On page 249 of “The Origin of Species,” 
he writes: “ I see no good reason why the views 
given in this volume should shock the re¬ 
ligious feelings of any one.” This language 
implies that he did not by his writings intend 
to deny the existence of God or the truth of 
the Christian religion. 

He speaks about “the laws impressed on 
matter by the Creator,” which as “secondary 
causes” produce evolution. He said: “It is 
mere rubbish thinking of the origin of life.” 
Also, that it is impossible to account for the 
simplest mental power. He did not place 

208 



Atheism in Our Universities 


himself with those who rely exclusively on 
matter, motion and force as the final cause 
of evolution. 

Logically, however, if secondary causes 
alone— i. e., matter, motion and force—acting 
by chance, are all that he needed to account 
for the working of his theory from the high 
forms with which he began up to man, the 
same process, it would seem, could have pro¬ 
duced these forms from the beginning; and 
this, as claimed by many evolutionists, neces¬ 
sarily involved spontaneous generation. 

A second class, who regard themselves as 
theistic evolutionists, accept evolution as God’s 
only method of working, thus eliminating the 
supernatural by naturalism. 

As I have stated, this method destroys the 
Bible and the Christian religion, and gives 
only natural religion. 

A third class accept both the natural and 
the supernatural as set forth in the Bible; 
they accept both evolution of species and 
miracles. This I take to be the attitude gen¬ 
erally of those who claim to be Christian 
evolutionists. Evolution, however, in the 
proper sense is pure naturalism, founded on 
“matter, motion and force” as the only scien¬ 
tific basis, or, if God is admitted, His work is 

confined strictly to the naturalistic method. 

209 




Atheism in Our Universities 


It is evident that the great question is 
God or no God ? Or, if God is, is He confined 
to naturalism? Are there intelligence and 
freewill in and through it all ? Shall a 
materialistic philosophy based upon intelli¬ 
gent force, acting by chance, banish from 
the human mind and heart the living God, the 
Father of all ? Shall man be regarded as 
simply the highest brute? Is man to exist 
“without God and without hope in the world," 
entering the future with uncertain tread, or 
shall he face it with unshaken faith as to the 
realities beyond and with a hope “anchored 
within the vale"? 

David exclaimed: “My heart and my flesh 
cry out for the living God." 

Bacon said: “They that deny a God, 
destroy man’s nobility; for clearly man is of 
kin to the beasts by his body, and if he be not 
of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and 
ignoble creature." 

“A foe to God was never a true friend to 
man. ’ ’ 

In conclusion, I may say that what I have 
written is aimed especially at the teaching of 
a godless theory under the name “evolution," 
and at those views of evolution that eliminate 
the supernatural as taught in the Bible. 

It is said that a recent census in France 
gives six million atheists in the country. A 

210 




Atheism in Our Universities 


correct census would, no doubt, give to Ger¬ 
many and some other European countries an 
equal per cent. The effects of godlessness are 
manifesting themselves in all countries. This 
is partly due to the peculiar conditions grow¬ 
ing out of the World War. 

Our public-school system is supposed to 
conserve the interests of the people, but these 
interests can not best be advanced by the teach¬ 
ing of a godless theory of the universe. 

I feel sure that a considerable per cent, of 
professors’ chairs in many of our leading 
universities are occupied by agnostics and 
atheists. They are, for the most part, quietly 
doing their deadly work with those who are to 
teach the present, and, through their influence, 
the future, generations. 

These professors are protected by what is 
called “academic liberty,” or “academic free¬ 
dom.” They sit, as it were, in the steel vaults 
built by the millions of dollars of great uni¬ 
versities and blandly smile at the protests that 
are made against their godless teaching. If 
they condescend to notice objections at all, it 
is to say that their teaching is misunderstood. 

At the same time they “laugh up their 
sleeves,” and say to themselves, “The old fools 
are casting their eggs against stone walls.” 

Is it true that the public has, in various 

ways, enthroned the godless to teach the young 

211 




Atheism in Our Universities 


and assigned them godlike power? Has the 
Christian public no way to reach and dethrone 
the atheists who sit in public places and devi¬ 
talize the soids of men? Can majorities reach 
and dethrone them? Can the united protests 
of all God-fearing Christian ministers have the 
desired effect? 

Many of the clergy have been led ignorantly 
to accept a false theory of evolution, and this 
quiets their apprehensions so that they may 
feel that all is well. But all Christian minis¬ 
ters stand for God and against atheism. A 
united clergy might cleanse the Augean stable 
of its filth of atheism. All would rejoice if it 
were done. But we are told that each clergy¬ 
man must devote himself to looking after his 
own flock. 

Is it not time for Elijah to come calling 
down fire from heaven and bringing his sword 
to slay? 

The Christ has said: 11 Every plant, which 
my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall 
be rooted up.” 


212 

























